Exploratory study: Evaluation of a symptom checker effectiveness for providing a diagnosis and evaluating the situation emergency compared to emergency physicians using simulated and standardized patients.

BACKGROUND: The overloading of health care systems is an international problem. In this context, new tools such as symptom checker (SC) are emerging to improve patient orientation and triage. This SC should be rigorously evaluated and we can take a cue from the way we evaluate medical students, using objective structured clinical examinations (OSCE) with simulated patients. OBJECTIVE: The main objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of a symptom checker versus emergency physicians using OSCEs as an assessment method. METHODS: We explored a method to evaluate the ability to set a diagnosis and evaluate the emergency of a situation with simulation. A panel of medical experts wrote 220 simulated patients cases. Each situation was played twice by an actor trained to the role: once for the SC, then for an emergency physician. Like a teleconsultation, only the patient's voice was accessible. We performed a prospective non-inferiority study. If primary analysis had failed to detect non-inferiority, we have planned a superiority analysis. RESULTS: The SC established only 30% of the main diagnosis as the emergency physician found 81% of these. The emergency physician was also superior compared to the SC in the suggestion of secondary diagnosis (92% versus 52%). In the matter of patient triage (vital emergency or not), there is still a medical superiority (96% versus 71%). We prove a non-inferiority of the SC compared to the physician in terms of interviewing time. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: We should use simulated patients instead of clinical cases in order to evaluate the effectiveness of SCs.

Biosensors for the Rapid Detection of Cardiovascular Biomarkers of Vital Interest: Needs, Analysis and Perspectives.

We have previously surveyed a panel of 508 physicians from around the world about which biomarkers would be relevant if obtained in a very short time frame, corresponding to emergency situations (life-threatening or not). The biomarkers that emerged from this study were markers of cardiovascular disease: troponin, D-dimers, and brain natriuretic peptide (BNP). Cardiovascular disease is a group of disorders affecting the heart and blood vessels. At the intersection of medicine, basic research and engineering, biosensors that address the need for rapid biological analysis could find a place of choice in the hospital or primary care ecosystem. Rapid, reliable, and inexpensive analysis with a multi-marker approach, including machine learning analysis for patient risk analysis, could meet the demand of medical teams. The objective of this opinion review, proposed by a multidisciplinary team of experts (physicians, biologists, market access experts, and engineers), is to present cases where a rapid biological response is indeed valuable, to provide a short overview of current biosensor technologies for cardiac biomarkers designed for a short result time, and to discuss existing market access issues.