Remote animal health monitoring

RE: Remote animal health monitoring

Arlo Guthrie — Tue, 13 Sep 2016 16:21:58 GMT

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]1 the cost[/quote]

Well, they don't seem to be toooo expensive, and the price is dropping all the time with this kind of stuff.

[quote user="Sal the 1st"]is it just another gadget that gets stored in the back of a cupboard somewhere when the novelty wears off?[/quote]

Maybe it should be paired with an owner-fitbit-thingy which delivers a small electrical jolt if the owner doesn't do what you told them. To the owner, I mean, not the dog!

I say 'small' electrical jolt. Perhaps the 'Pro' model could deliver a variable electrical jolt: up to 4000 volts for the worst transgressors.

Joking aside, the point is that if they throw it in the cupboard, with remote monitoring you would know straight away (I mean, it's either that or the dog has ceased to be alive). That in itself should help improve client compliance.

RE: Remote animal health monitoring

Sal the 1st — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 16:52:46 GMT

its a good idea but my concern would be 1 the cost 2 accuracy 3 is it just another gadget that gets stored in the back of a cupboard somewhere when the novelty wears off?

RE: Remote animal health monitoring

Ben Ogden — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 13:10:43 GMT

Coming soon, FitBit Dog!

I welcome the new technology, even if it only records movement, it's only going to need some calculation (based on size etc) to work our energy used. Find a way to link it to Pokemon go and some owners may have their kids getting the dog out more.....

Arlo, all those points you raise on how it could benefit practices I agree with, its just a case of a reliable product coming out..

RE: Remote animal health monitoring

Alison Clare Hickman — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 11:35:21 GMT

Hi Arlo,

Accuracy is important for pointers towards all kinds of diseases/conditions, so I would want the technology to be reliable! If merely for a low/high deviation for, say, activity monitoring in an obesity management programme it would be okay-ish. Limited use though.

I desire that technology beats my own ears and eyes. Hmmm, it doesn't always / to rarely in my experience as the previous poster identified. This, as well, as the fact that I was strongly taught by a self-confessed veteran 'luddite' / old school veterinary surgeon that the BEST monitor is always the alert human being using their own senses. Any monitoring tool of any technological type, (even a thermometer or stethoscope), is just a back-up to the human senses and thought processes, not the oracle of all that is recorded/observed/understood. This has served me well, time and time again as e.g. an ECG can still record heart activity after the patient is clinically dead or when a pulse oximeter tells me the patient is 'anoxic' when clearly they are breathing well, the ET tube is patent, the O2 is flowing and all other signs are aok.

Okay, the more developments in technology that occur the better the reliability and accuracy (in theory), so bring it on. However, I will still rely on human senses as the primary test, every time!!!

Ali h

RE: Remote animal health monitoring

Arlo Guthrie — Mon, 12 Sep 2016 09:15:28 GMT

[quote user="PJ Zurawel"]I would be reluctant to trust the accuracy of such things[/quote]

Know what you mean, I was watching a review of fitness trackers which found that there was a huge difference in the recorded activity / heartrate etc. But the technology is improving, and I think it would be easy enough to test these things.

Also, I wonder whether it really matters if they under or over-record, as long as they do it consistently, because they'd still provide an indicator of deviation from normal, if you see what I mean.

RE: Remote animal health monitoring

PJ Zurawel — Sat, 10 Sep 2016 22:54:38 GMT

I would be reluctant to trust the accuracy of such things, I remember being really excited when I started training about a microchip that could also tell you the internal temperature just by scanning it only to find that when you actually compare it to a thermometer there is quite a significant difference.