Latest News
Wearable Wisdom or WebMD on a Wrist?
Posted 11/13/24 (Wed)
Wearable Wisdom or WebMD on a Wrist?
From tracking step counts, sleep cycles, and heart rates, to detecting falls, menstrual cycle phases, and blood oxygen saturation, wearable devices have evolved from basic fitness trackers to a source of health data rivaling even some of the most sophisticated medical equipment. Most wearables are connected via Bluetooth or Wi-Fi to a corresponding smartphone app, constantly monitoring and analyzing its wearer’s various physiological metrics. Whether it’s an Apple Watch, Fitbit, or Garmin, these rechargeable electronic gadgets are ever pervasive—as in 1 in 3 Americans report using a smartwatch or fitness tracker, according to the most recent data from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. There is a double-edge-sword when it comes to wearables as they empower patients to take control and be more mindful of their health while potentially leading to an increase in self-diagnoses and prompting patients to scrutinize every bit of data, regardless of its accuracy or importance.
So, what should providers do when patients bring weeks’ worth of data to their next appointment? And, perhaps of even greater concern, how does this information impact the applicable standard of care?
Wearables collect a treasure trove of health data, and patients may expect all of it to be clinically relevant. Patients may be inclined to analyze the data themselves using the graphs, charts, and scoring systems found on the app neatly categorizing large volumes of data, at least at first glance. Patients are then likely to arrive at their own conclusions and potentially attempt to render their own treatment, similar to how patients interpret their symptoms using WebMD or other readily available electronic resources to self, and in some instances, mis-diagnose.
However, wearables, like any medical technology device, are not infallible and inaccurate readings, inconsistent usage, sensor failure, improper placement, or user error may taint the data. Accordingly, providers should critically analyze wearable data and consider running further clinical tests to determine its accuracy and formulate a proper care plan.
Providers should be inclined to analyze health data from wearable devices the same way they analyze other patient-reported data—as a factor, not a singular source, in determining the patient’s global health report to render an evidence-based diagnosis and care plan. Data from wearable technology may provide unique insights into the wearer’s day-to-day (and sometimes up-to-the-minute) health metrics, which might otherwise be difficult to capture. However, this data should be used to supplement, not overshadow, trusted clinical methods of diagnosis and treatment.
The abundance of data from wearables may be especially overwhelming when transmitted through electronic healthcare portals. Healthcare professionals may not have the time and resources to properly analyze the collection of health markers and provide a timely review. Moving forward, it may be necessary for healthcare providers to manage patient expectations regarding the reliability of wearable devices and a realistic response time for a care team member to sift through large amounts of data. Some facilities report having started billing patients for messages requiring a clinician’s time and expertise to answer.
It remains to be seen how health data from wearable devices may impact malpractice and other litigation. For example, a plaintiff in a malpractice action may claim they suffer from a lack of sleep and limited mobility, while the data from their wearable device strongly suggests otherwise, as demonstrated by sleep charts evidencing long and peaceful nights and days filled with frequent walks and high step counts. However, authentication and other challenges may affect the admissibility of this evidence.
As always, physicians and healthcare providers should consult with an experienced attorney regarding specific legal questions.