The mobile emergency server (MES) was more suitable for practical emergency telemedicine work than the mobile emergency bed (MEB).
Which mobile telemedicine system prototype (MES vs MEB) is more suitable for use in the emergency room?
A mobile emergency server using a radio-frequency link was found to be more practical for emergency telemedicine work than a wireless LAN-connected mobile emergency bed.
Two different prototype mobile telemedicine systems were constructed for use in the emergency room. They could transmit physiological signals as well as video pictures and sound. One device, the mobile emergency bed (MEB), was powered by battery and had a wireless connection to the local-area network (LAN). For the other, the mobile emergency server (MES), a patient monitor, video-camera and microphone were connected by a radio-frequency link to a server. A functional evaluation and a clinical evaluation (by 12 emergency doctors in six emergency centres) were performed on both prototypes. The bandwidth and the video quality of the MEB were better than those of the MES, because of the digital transmission of the wireless LAN. The MES was better for directing patient treatment and teleconsultation; the MEB was better for static patients in the emergency centre. In general, the MES was more suitable for practical emergency telemedicine work.
Yoo et al. (Mon,) reported a other. Mobile emergency server (MES) vs. Mobile emergency bed (MEB) was evaluated on Functional and clinical evaluation. The mobile emergency server (MES) was more suitable for practical emergency telemedicine work than the mobile emergency bed (MEB).