Search

Background: Excessive heat stress led to more than 400 deaths in the United States from 2011 to 2021. Common methods for heat injury prevention revolve around measurements of the environment and fail to account for the unique individual response to stressors. Methods: An observational approach was utilized with nine helicopter-based emergency medical services personnel during emergency flights to compare core temperature readings obtained from an ingestible temperature monitoring pill and the estimated core temperature reading of the Slate Safety Band V2 wearable device. Comparison of data was conducted within Microsoft Excel programming to determine the mean square error (MSE), root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), mean biased error (MBE), and Bland–Altman plot development. Findings: A significant bias (t = 17.58, p <.001) toward the Slate Safety device reading higher with an average difference of −0.48°C (−0.86°F) was found, meaning the average temperature reading is 0.48°C (−0.86°F) higher with the Slate Safety device. A significant correlation of.26 (p <.001) was noted between the ingestible pill and the wearable device with a 95% confidence interval of 0.23 to 0.29. Aggregate core temperature data demonstrated an MSE of 0.43, an RMSE of 0.65, an MAE of 0.54, and an MBE of −0.48. Conclusions/Application to Practice: The ability to monitor the physiological parameters of a worker remotely adds safety tools relative to the risks of heat stress. The slightly higher reading associated with the Slate Safety wearable device provides an added safety margin to protect our workers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]