Medical information on the Internet: Quality assessment of lumbar puncture and neuroaxial block techniques on YouTube

• Published in: Clinical neurology and neurosurgery Vol. 114; no. 6; pp. 655 - 658
• Main Authors: Rössler, Bernhard, Lahner, Daniel, Schebesta, Karl, Chiari, Astrid, Plöchl, Walter
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Amsterdam Elsevier B.V 01-07-2012; Elsevier; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Anesthesia, Spinal - adverse effects; Anesthesia, Spinal - instrumentation; Anesthesia, Spinal - methods; Anesthetics, Local - administration & dosage; Anesthetics, Local - adverse effects; Biological and medical sciences; Cross-Sectional Studies; Endpoint Determination; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Information Services; Internet; Internet - standards; Learning; Lumbar puncture; Medical information; Medical sciences; Monitoring, Physiologic; Nerve Block - adverse effects; Nerve Block - instrumentation; Nerve Block - methods; Neurology; Neurosurgery; Patient Safety; Quality Control; Spinal Puncture - adverse effects; Spinal Puncture - instrumentation; Spinal Puncture - methods; Sterility; Sterilization; Surgery (general aspects). Transplantations, organ and tissue grafts. Graft diseases; Medical information; Lumbar puncture; Quality control; Nervous system diseases; Internet; Surgery
• ISSN: 0303-8467; 1872-6968
• DOI: 10.1016/j.clineuro.2011.12.048

Abstract Background The Internet has become the largest, most up-to-date source for medical information. Besides enhancing patients’ knowledge, the freely accessible audio-visual files have an impact on medical education. However little is known about their characteristics. In this manuscript the quality of lumbar puncture (LP) and spinal anaesthesia (SA) videos available on YouTube is assessed. Methods This retrospective analysis was based on a search for LP and SA on YouTube. Videos were evaluated using essential key points (5 in SA, 4 in LP) and 3 safety indicators. Furthermore, violation of sterile working techniques and a rating whether the video must be regarded as dangerously misleading was performed. Results From 2321 hits matching the keywords, 38 videos were eligible for evaluation. In LP videos, 14% contained information on all, 4.5% on 3 and 4.5% on 2 key points, 59% on 1 and 18% on no key point. Regarding SA, no video contained information on all 5 key points, 56% on 2–4 and 25% on 1 key point, 19% did not contain any essential information. A sterility violation occurred in 11%, and 13% were classified as dangerously misleading. Conclusions Even though high quality videos are available, the quality of video clips is generally low. The fraction of videos that were not performed in an aseptic manner is low, but these pose a substantial risk to patients. Consequently, more high-quality, institutional medical learning videos must be made available in the light of the increased utilization on the Internet.