0689 Use Of An Automated Scanning System To Select A Patient Interface
Abstract Introduction There is no universal process for selecting mask style, size, and fit, and there is considerable variance in clinician and patient mask preference and patient anatomy. Poor mask fit may negatively affect adherence. A three-dimensional (3D) facial scanner and proprietary analyti...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Sleep (New York, N.Y.) N.Y.), 2020-05, Vol.43 (Supplement_1), p.A263-A263 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | A263 |
---|---|
container_issue | Supplement_1 |
container_start_page | A263 |
container_title | Sleep (New York, N.Y.) |
container_volume | 43 |
creator | Hardy, W Jasko, J Bogan, R |
description | Abstract
Introduction
There is no universal process for selecting mask style, size, and fit, and there is considerable variance in clinician and patient mask preference and patient anatomy. Poor mask fit may negatively affect adherence. A three-dimensional (3D) facial scanner and proprietary analytical software were developed to bring efficiencies to mask selection. This study explored the impact of that system on initial mask success compared to standard practice.
Methods
This was an open-label, randomized-controlled study. Participants provided written informed consent. 3D Scanner Arm (3DA): Participants answered questions about sleeping habits then had 3D facial images taken. Proprietary software recommended a hierarchy of up to four Philips Respironics masks and sizes. Traditional Fitting Arm (TFA): A designated clinician selected and fit masks using their standard methods. Mask selection was assessed by applying therapy and soliciting patient and clinician feedback. Mask refits and adherence were tracked through 90 days. Five sleep centers recruited 115 participants into the 3DA (61 males, 51.1±13.4 years, BMI 35.2±7.0, diagnostic AHI 26.2±21.9) and 123 into the TFA (79 males, 51.1±11.9 years, BMI 35±7.9, diagnostic AHI 26.9±22.6).
Results
A significantly higher percentage of 3DA patients required only one mask fitting (with no refits) compared to TFA during the initial setup (89.6% vs. 54.5%, p |
doi_str_mv | 10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.685 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2502906345</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><oup_id>10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.685</oup_id><sourcerecordid>2502906345</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1505-a1bf2e56752885527305f77495aa3e3b805f3403303ede3675089026b081b2373</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkMtqwzAQRUVpoWnaD-hO0G2djCSPLS9N6CMQSCHJWsjOuCQksmvJi_Trqzb5gK6Gy5w7A4exRwETAYWa-gNRN_321gJmk0zjFRsJREiKuL5mIxCZSLQAvGV33u8h5rRQI_YKmS74xhNfNrx0vBxCe7SBtnxVW-d27pOvTj7Qka9bvqID1YGX_MOGHbnA5y5Q39ia7tlNYw-eHi5zzDavL-vZe7JYvs1n5SKpBQImVlSNJMxylFojylwBNnmeFmitIlXpGFUKSoGiLanIgS5AZhVoUUmVqzF7Ot_t-vZrIB_Mvh16F18aiSALyFSKkRJnqu5b73tqTNfvjrY_GQHmV5f502UuukzUFTvP5047dP_AfwARRWq7</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2502906345</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>0689 Use Of An Automated Scanning System To Select A Patient Interface</title><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Hardy, W ; Jasko, J ; Bogan, R</creator><creatorcontrib>Hardy, W ; Jasko, J ; Bogan, R</creatorcontrib><description>Abstract
Introduction
There is no universal process for selecting mask style, size, and fit, and there is considerable variance in clinician and patient mask preference and patient anatomy. Poor mask fit may negatively affect adherence. A three-dimensional (3D) facial scanner and proprietary analytical software were developed to bring efficiencies to mask selection. This study explored the impact of that system on initial mask success compared to standard practice.
Methods
This was an open-label, randomized-controlled study. Participants provided written informed consent. 3D Scanner Arm (3DA): Participants answered questions about sleeping habits then had 3D facial images taken. Proprietary software recommended a hierarchy of up to four Philips Respironics masks and sizes. Traditional Fitting Arm (TFA): A designated clinician selected and fit masks using their standard methods. Mask selection was assessed by applying therapy and soliciting patient and clinician feedback. Mask refits and adherence were tracked through 90 days. Five sleep centers recruited 115 participants into the 3DA (61 males, 51.1±13.4 years, BMI 35.2±7.0, diagnostic AHI 26.2±21.9) and 123 into the TFA (79 males, 51.1±11.9 years, BMI 35±7.9, diagnostic AHI 26.9±22.6).
Results
A significantly higher percentage of 3DA patients required only one mask fitting (with no refits) compared to TFA during the initial setup (89.6% vs. 54.5%, p<0.001) and through 90 days (62.6% vs 37.4%, p<0.001). 3DA subjectively rated confidence in and satisfaction with the scanner-selected mask significantly higher than TFA. Mask leak was lower in the 3DA compared to TFA (29.4±10.6 vs 32.3±11.4 L/M, p= 0.043). The CMS adherence rate tended to favor 3DA vs. TFA (66.7% vs. 55.3, p=0.083). There were no significant differences in AHI or other adherence metrics.
Conclusion
The 3D scanner system was successful in mask selection with lower mask leak and greater patient satisfaction and confidence. This tool may bring about operational efficiencies to the mask selection process.
Support
This study was sponsored by Philips Respironics</description><identifier>ISSN: 0161-8105</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-9109</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.685</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>US: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Patient satisfaction ; Scanners</subject><ispartof>Sleep (New York, N.Y.), 2020-05, Vol.43 (Supplement_1), p.A263-A263</ispartof><rights>Sleep Research Society 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Sleep Research Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com. 2020</rights><rights>Sleep Research Society 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Sleep Research Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail journals.permissions@oup.com.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1584,27924,27925</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hardy, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jasko, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bogan, R</creatorcontrib><title>0689 Use Of An Automated Scanning System To Select A Patient Interface</title><title>Sleep (New York, N.Y.)</title><description>Abstract
Introduction
There is no universal process for selecting mask style, size, and fit, and there is considerable variance in clinician and patient mask preference and patient anatomy. Poor mask fit may negatively affect adherence. A three-dimensional (3D) facial scanner and proprietary analytical software were developed to bring efficiencies to mask selection. This study explored the impact of that system on initial mask success compared to standard practice.
Methods
This was an open-label, randomized-controlled study. Participants provided written informed consent. 3D Scanner Arm (3DA): Participants answered questions about sleeping habits then had 3D facial images taken. Proprietary software recommended a hierarchy of up to four Philips Respironics masks and sizes. Traditional Fitting Arm (TFA): A designated clinician selected and fit masks using their standard methods. Mask selection was assessed by applying therapy and soliciting patient and clinician feedback. Mask refits and adherence were tracked through 90 days. Five sleep centers recruited 115 participants into the 3DA (61 males, 51.1±13.4 years, BMI 35.2±7.0, diagnostic AHI 26.2±21.9) and 123 into the TFA (79 males, 51.1±11.9 years, BMI 35±7.9, diagnostic AHI 26.9±22.6).
Results
A significantly higher percentage of 3DA patients required only one mask fitting (with no refits) compared to TFA during the initial setup (89.6% vs. 54.5%, p<0.001) and through 90 days (62.6% vs 37.4%, p<0.001). 3DA subjectively rated confidence in and satisfaction with the scanner-selected mask significantly higher than TFA. Mask leak was lower in the 3DA compared to TFA (29.4±10.6 vs 32.3±11.4 L/M, p= 0.043). The CMS adherence rate tended to favor 3DA vs. TFA (66.7% vs. 55.3, p=0.083). There were no significant differences in AHI or other adherence metrics.
Conclusion
The 3D scanner system was successful in mask selection with lower mask leak and greater patient satisfaction and confidence. This tool may bring about operational efficiencies to the mask selection process.
Support
This study was sponsored by Philips Respironics</description><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Scanners</subject><issn>0161-8105</issn><issn>1550-9109</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqNkMtqwzAQRUVpoWnaD-hO0G2djCSPLS9N6CMQSCHJWsjOuCQksmvJi_Trqzb5gK6Gy5w7A4exRwETAYWa-gNRN_321gJmk0zjFRsJREiKuL5mIxCZSLQAvGV33u8h5rRQI_YKmS74xhNfNrx0vBxCe7SBtnxVW-d27pOvTj7Qka9bvqID1YGX_MOGHbnA5y5Q39ia7tlNYw-eHi5zzDavL-vZe7JYvs1n5SKpBQImVlSNJMxylFojylwBNnmeFmitIlXpGFUKSoGiLanIgS5AZhVoUUmVqzF7Ot_t-vZrIB_Mvh16F18aiSALyFSKkRJnqu5b73tqTNfvjrY_GQHmV5f502UuukzUFTvP5047dP_AfwARRWq7</recordid><startdate>20200527</startdate><enddate>20200527</enddate><creator>Hardy, W</creator><creator>Jasko, J</creator><creator>Bogan, R</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20200527</creationdate><title>0689 Use Of An Automated Scanning System To Select A Patient Interface</title><author>Hardy, W ; Jasko, J ; Bogan, R</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1505-a1bf2e56752885527305f77495aa3e3b805f3403303ede3675089026b081b2373</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Scanners</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hardy, W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jasko, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bogan, R</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><jtitle>Sleep (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hardy, W</au><au>Jasko, J</au><au>Bogan, R</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>0689 Use Of An Automated Scanning System To Select A Patient Interface</atitle><jtitle>Sleep (New York, N.Y.)</jtitle><date>2020-05-27</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>Supplement_1</issue><spage>A263</spage><epage>A263</epage><pages>A263-A263</pages><issn>0161-8105</issn><eissn>1550-9109</eissn><abstract>Abstract
Introduction
There is no universal process for selecting mask style, size, and fit, and there is considerable variance in clinician and patient mask preference and patient anatomy. Poor mask fit may negatively affect adherence. A three-dimensional (3D) facial scanner and proprietary analytical software were developed to bring efficiencies to mask selection. This study explored the impact of that system on initial mask success compared to standard practice.
Methods
This was an open-label, randomized-controlled study. Participants provided written informed consent. 3D Scanner Arm (3DA): Participants answered questions about sleeping habits then had 3D facial images taken. Proprietary software recommended a hierarchy of up to four Philips Respironics masks and sizes. Traditional Fitting Arm (TFA): A designated clinician selected and fit masks using their standard methods. Mask selection was assessed by applying therapy and soliciting patient and clinician feedback. Mask refits and adherence were tracked through 90 days. Five sleep centers recruited 115 participants into the 3DA (61 males, 51.1±13.4 years, BMI 35.2±7.0, diagnostic AHI 26.2±21.9) and 123 into the TFA (79 males, 51.1±11.9 years, BMI 35±7.9, diagnostic AHI 26.9±22.6).
Results
A significantly higher percentage of 3DA patients required only one mask fitting (with no refits) compared to TFA during the initial setup (89.6% vs. 54.5%, p<0.001) and through 90 days (62.6% vs 37.4%, p<0.001). 3DA subjectively rated confidence in and satisfaction with the scanner-selected mask significantly higher than TFA. Mask leak was lower in the 3DA compared to TFA (29.4±10.6 vs 32.3±11.4 L/M, p= 0.043). The CMS adherence rate tended to favor 3DA vs. TFA (66.7% vs. 55.3, p=0.083). There were no significant differences in AHI or other adherence metrics.
Conclusion
The 3D scanner system was successful in mask selection with lower mask leak and greater patient satisfaction and confidence. This tool may bring about operational efficiencies to the mask selection process.
Support
This study was sponsored by Philips Respironics</abstract><cop>US</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.685</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0161-8105 |
ispartof | Sleep (New York, N.Y.), 2020-05, Vol.43 (Supplement_1), p.A263-A263 |
issn | 0161-8105 1550-9109 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_2502906345 |
source | Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
subjects | Patient satisfaction Scanners |
title | 0689 Use Of An Automated Scanning System To Select A Patient Interface |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T23%3A56%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=0689%20Use%20Of%20An%20Automated%20Scanning%20System%20To%20Select%20A%20Patient%20Interface&rft.jtitle=Sleep%20(New%20York,%20N.Y.)&rft.au=Hardy,%20W&rft.date=2020-05-27&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=Supplement_1&rft.spage=A263&rft.epage=A263&rft.pages=A263-A263&rft.issn=0161-8105&rft.eissn=1550-9109&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.685&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2502906345%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2502906345&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_oup_id=10.1093/sleep/zsaa056.685&rfr_iscdi=true |