Development of a Smart Glass Application for Wound Management

  • Kai KlinkerEmail author
  • Manuel Wiesche
  • Helmut Krcmar
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11491)


Treatment of chronic wounds is a challenging task for health care professionals. When treating chronic wounds, accurate documentation of wound development via photos, measurements, and written descriptions are crucial for monitoring the healing progress over time and choosing the right wound treatment. Currently, however, wound documentation is often perceived as inaccurate and incomplete. In this research, we follow a user-centered design science approach to develop a smart glass-based wound documentation system to support healthcare workers. Through ethnographic fieldwork, interviews and prototype tests with focus groups, we find that smart glass applications hold potential for improving the wound documentation process because they allow for hands-free documentation at the point of care.


Augmented Reality Health care Wound management Design science Smart glasses 



This research and development project is/was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Program “Innovations for Tomorrow’s Production, Services, and Work” (ARinFLEX: 02K14A080) and managed by the Project Management Agency Karlsruhe (PTKA). The author is responsible for the contents of this publication. We would especially like to thank Dorothee Wittek and the numerous employees of the Johanniter for supporting our research.


  1. 1.
    Vollmer, A.-M., Prokosch, H.-U., Bürkle, T.: Identifying barriers for implementation of computer based nursing documentation. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 201, 94–101 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    van Rooij, T., Marsh, S.: eHealth: past and future perspectives. Per. Med. 13, 57–70 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Klinker, K., Wiesche, M., Krcmar, H.: Conceptualizing passive trust: the case of smart glasses in healthcare. In: European Conference on Information Systems (2019)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schubert, I., Köster, I.: Epidemiologie und Versorgung von Patienten mit chronischen Wunden. Eine Analyse auf der Basis der Versichertenstichprobe AOK Hessen/KV Hessen. Modul (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    BVMed - Bundesverband Medizintechnologie e.V.: Informationsbroschüre Wirtschaftlichkeit und Gesundheitspolitik Einsatz von hydroaktiven Wundauflagen (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Block, L., et al.: SuperNurse: nurses’ workarounds informing the design of interactive technologies for home wound care (2017)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Klinker, K., Fries, V., Wiesche, M., Krcmar, H.: CatCare: designing a serious game to foster hand hygiene compliance in health care facilities. In: Twelfth International Conference on Design Science Research in Information Systems and Technology, pp. 20–28 (2017)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Przybilla, L., Klinker, K., Wiesche, M., Krcmar, H.: A human-centric approach to digital innovation projects in health care: learnings from applying design thinking. In: Pacific Asia Conference on Information Systems (PACIS), Yokohama (2018)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Klinker, K., et al.: Structure for innovations: a use case taxonomy for smart glasses in service processes. In: Multikonferenz Wirtschaftsinformatik (MKWI 2018), pp. 1599–1610 (2018)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hevner, A.R.: A three cycle view of design science research. Scand. J. Inf. Syst. 19, 4 (2007)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hevner, A.R., March, S.T., Park, J., Ram, S.: Design science in information systems research. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 28, 6 (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 27, 425–478 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Venkatesh, V., Thong, J.Y.L., Xu, X.: Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. Manag. Inf. Syst. Q. 36, 157–178 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wills, M., El-Gayar, O., Benett, D.: Examining healthcare professionals’ acceptance of electronic medical records using UTAUT. Issues Inf. Syst. IX, 396–401 (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oliver, R.L.: A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J. Mark. Res. 17, 460 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Loveman, G.: Employee satisfaction, customer loyalty, and financial performance. J. Serv. Res. 1, 18–31 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ding, S., Lin, F., Gillespie, B.M.: Surgical wound assessment and documentation of nurses: an integrative review. J. Wound Care 25, 232–240 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gillespie, B.M., Chaboyer, W., St John, W., Morley, N., Nieuwenhoven, P.: Health professionals’ decision-making in wound management: a grounded theory. J. Adv. Nurs. 71, 1238–1248 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thomas, C.M., McIntosh, C.E., Edwards, J.A.: Smartphones and computer tablets: friend or foe? J. Nurs. Educ. Pract. 4, 210–217 (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wüller, H., Behrens, J., Klinker, K., Wiesche, M., Krcmar, H., Remmers, H.: Smart glasses in nursing–situation change and further usages exemplified on a wound care application. Stud. Health Technol. Inform. 253, 191–195 (2018)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hatscher, B., Luz, M., Elkmann, N., Hansen, C.: GazeTap : towards hands-free interaction in the operating room. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pp. 243–251 (2017)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schwald, B., de Laval, B.: Training and assistance to maintenance in an augmented reality environment. Int. Conf. human-computer Interact. Cogn. Soc. Ergon. Asp. 11, 1121–1125 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Azuma, R.: A survey of augmented reality. Presence Teleoperators Virtual Environ. 6, 355–385 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Evans, G., Miller, J., Pena, M.I., MacAllister, A., Winer, E.: Evaluating the Microsoft HoloLens through an augmented reality assembly application (2017)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacob, R.J.K., Girouard, A., Hirshfield, L.M., Horn, M.S.: Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces, pp. 201–210. (2008)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Huck-Fries, V., Wiegand, F., Klinker, K., Wiesche, M., Krcmar, H.: Datenbrillen in der Wartung: Evaluation verschiedener Eingabemodalitäten bei Servicetechnikern. In: Informatik 2017. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), Chemnitz (2017)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bowman, D.A., et al.: 3D user interfaces: new directions and new perspectives. In: Computer Graphics and Applications, pp. 1–19 (2008)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Czuszynski, K., Ruminski, J., Kocejko, T., Wtorek, J.: Septic safe interactions with smart glasses in health care. In: 37th Annual International Conference of the IEEE Engineering in Medicine and Biology Society (EMBC), pp. 1604–1607. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aldaz, G., et al.: Hands-free image capture, data tagging and transfer using Google Glass: a pilot study for improved wound care management. PLoS ONE 10, e0121179 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mitrasinovic, S., et al.: Clinical and surgical applications of smart glasses. Technol. Health Care 23, 381–401 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhao, Y., Heida, T., van Wegen, E.E.H., Bloem, B.R., van Wezel, R.J.A.: E-health support in people with Parkinson’s disease with smart glasses: a survey of user requirements and expectations in the Netherlands. J. Parkinsons Dis. 5, 369–378 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Meng, Y., Choi, H.-K., Kim, H.-C.: Exploring the user requirements for wearable healthcare systems. In: 13th IEEE International Conference on E-health Networking Applications and Services (Healthcom), pp. 74–77. IEEE (2011)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sultan, N.: Reflective thoughts on the potential and challenges of wearable technology for healthcare provision and medical education. Int. J. Inf. Manage. 35, 521–526 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Itoh, Y., Klinker, G.: Interaction-free calibration for optical see-through head-mounted displays based on 3D Eye localization. In: 3DUI, pp. 75–82 (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Maulsby, D., Greenberg, S., Mander, R.: Prototyping an intelligent agent through Wizard of Oz. In: ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 277–284 (1993)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Wilcoxon, F.: Individual comparisons of grouped data by ranking methods. J. Econ. Entomol. 39, 269 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chair for Information SystemsTechnical University of MunichGarchingGermany

Personalised recommendations