About Us

   A Medical Device – Versus a Telemedical Device

A study conducted in Alaska by the Arctic Investigations Program revealed that antibiotic usage for the treatment of ear disease significantly decreased when a video otoscope enabled “a community health aide to evaluate the tympanic membrane simultaneously with the instructor and other health aides.” [1]. The study noted that, compared to control clinics without a video otoscope, the region receiving the education campaign [and video otoscope] had a “… total number of antibiotic courses per person declines 31% ...” “… and number of courses per clinic visit declined 33% …” The AFHCAN system was designed to allow providers to access the video otoscope – and all other peripherals – within three touches of the touchscreen. Providers are trained to use the device for medical purposes – and encouraged to use the devices even when they might not send the data in a telemedicine case. Such instances are called “unsaved cases” and are not reflected in the overall usage of the system. The number of saved and unsaved cases at three of the AFHCAN organizations is shown below. Clearly, the number of unsaved cases (medical usage) is significant and, in some cases, exceeds the saved cases (telemedical usage).
	Organization A Organization B Organization C	Unsaved Cases 3500 1236 1683	Saved Cases 1647 1763 1517
[1] Arctic Investigations Program, National Center for Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Anchorage, Alaska. Kenneth M. Petersen, MD Thomas W. Hennessy, MD, MPH Jay C. Butler, MD Alan J. Parkinson, PhD Marilyn Getty, RN, FNP Dana Bruden, MS Benjamin Schwartz, MD