Talk:Remote physiological monitoring

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Merge Proposal[edit]

The idea of physiological monitoring is the part of the grand idea, Remote Patient Monitoring. Remote Patient Monitoring covers Remote physiological monitoring, biotelemetry, and other social aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1002a5 (talkcontribs) 16:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - yes this does form part of patient monitoring, however it is also extensively used for monitoring people who are not patients - e.g. astronauts, military personnel etc. it is part of that in the same way that a leg is part of a horse - it is part of a great many other things also. Innovationbrain (talk) 15:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose- Although Remote Patient Monitoring and Remote Physiological Monitoring have similar underlying processes, remote patient monitoring and remote physiological monitoring serve different purposes. It is unfortunate that there is a lack of standardization in nomenclature and definition of the terms, which leads to confusion.(Df1002 (talk) 18:54, 23 November 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose - I agree with first opposer. But I think it hinges on the definition of "Physiology" and the scope of application. A heart monitor is a physiological monitor. But would a device that describes a person's gait, or patterns of activity be a physiological monitor? If that information was used to identify a person, or at least to distinguish them from another person, would that still be physiological monitoring? Is a pedometer a physiological monitoring device? Lamming (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you think that "Remote physiological monitoring" is different from "Remote patient monitoring", please add a sentence or two to this article mentioning what exactly the difference is. What are the "different purposes" mentioned above? Thank you. --DavidCary (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Want More!!![edit]

This seems like a stellar article topic, and I'd love to learn more about it. Added onesource and wikify tags in hopes that some dear, experienced wikipedian will come along and save it. I really don't think it's a candidate for deletion, as it is an emergent technology. I'd love to read more, but the user that wrote most of it isn't around anymore. Vedek Wren (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


This is a cool article, a better editor woudl help, but very relevant to issues in our society now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.190.167 (talk) 03:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reads like a series of adverts and may detract from the value of wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.64.133.227 (talk) 17:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technology section[edit]

I removed the technology section in toto because it was doing more harm than good. It was basically a container for product-placement advertisements. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]