Dataset Information

Experiences of current vital signs monitoring practices and views of wearable monitoring: A qualitative study in patients and nurses.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To understand current experiences of vital signs monitoring of patients and clinical staff on a surgical ward, and views on the introduction of wearable ambulatory monitoring into the general ward environment.

Design

Qualitative study.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews using topic guides were conducted with 15 patients and 15 nurses on a surgical ward between July 2018 and August 2019. The concept of ambulatory wearable devices for clinical monitoring was introduced at the end of the interview.

Results

Three interconnected themes were identified. Vital sign data as evidence for escalation, examined nurses' use of data to support escalation of care and the implications for patients perceived to be deteriorating who have not reached the threshold for escalation. The second theme, Trustworthiness of vital sign data, described nurses' practice of using manual measurements to recheck or confirm automated vital signs readings when concerned. The final theme, finding a balance between continuous and intermittent monitoring, both patients and nurses agreed that although continuous monitoring may improve safety and reassurance, these needed to be balanced with multiple limitations. Factors to be considered included noise pollution, comfort, and impact on patient mobility and independence. Introduction of the concept of ambulatory wearable devices was viewed positively by both groups as offering solutions to some of the issues identified with traditional monitoring. However, most agreed that this would not be suitable for all patients and should not replace direct nurse/patient contact.

Conclusion

Both patients and staff identified the benefits of continuous monitoring to improve patient safety but, due to limitations, use should be carefully considered and patient-centred.

Impact

Feedback from nurses and patients suggests there is scope for ambulatory monitoring systems to be integrated into the hospital environment; however, both groups emphasized these should not add more noise to the ward nor replace direct nursing contact.

SUBMITTER: Areia C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9293408 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Continuous monitoring of vital signs by using wearable wireless devices may allow for timely detection of clinical deterioration in patients in general wards in comparison to detection by standard intermittent vital signs measurements. A large number of studies on many different wearable devices have been reported in recent years, but a systematic review is not yet available to date. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review for health care professionals regarding the current evidence about the validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs of wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs. METHODS:A systematic and comprehensive search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from January 2009 to September 2019 for studies that evaluated wearable wireless devices for continuous monitoring of vital signs in adults. Outcomes were structured by validation, feasibility, clinical outcomes, and costs. Risk of bias was determined by using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool, quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2nd edition, or quality of health economic studies tool. RESULTS:In this review, 27 studies evaluating 13 different wearable wireless devices were included. These studies predominantly evaluated the validation or the feasibility outcomes of these devices. Only a few studies reported the clinical outcomes with these devices and they did not report a significantly better clinical outcome than the standard tools used for measuring vital signs. Cost outcomes were not reported in any study. The quality of the included studies was predominantly rated as low or moderate. CONCLUSIONS:Wearable wireless continuous monitoring devices are mostly still in the clinical validation and feasibility testing phases. To date, there are no high quality large well-controlled studies of wearable wireless devices available that show a significant clinical benefit or cost-effectiveness. Such studies are needed to help health care professionals and administrators in their decision making regarding implementation of these devices on a large scale in clinical practice or in-home monitoring.

Project description:BackgroundWearable devices can be used for continuous patient monitoring in the general ward, increasing patient safety. Little is known about the experiences and expectations of patients and health care professionals regarding continuous monitoring with these devices.ObjectiveThis study aimed to identify positive and negative effects as well as barriers and facilitators for the use of two wearable devices: ViSi Mobile (VM) and HealthPatch (HP).MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, 90 patients admitted to the internal medicine and surgical wards of a university hospital in the Netherlands were randomly assigned to continuous vital sign monitoring using VM or HP and a control group. Users' experiences and expectations were addressed using semistructured interviews. Nurses, physician assistants, and medical doctors were also interviewed. Interviews were analyzed using thematic content analysis. Psychological distress was assessed using the State Trait Anxiety Inventory and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. The System Usability Scale was used to assess the usability of both devices.ResultsA total of 60 patients, 20 nurses, 3 physician assistants, and 6 medical doctors were interviewed. We identified 47 positive and 30 negative effects and 19 facilitators and 36 barriers for the use of VM and HP. Frequently mentioned topics included earlier identification of clinical deterioration, increased feelings of safety, and VM lines and electrodes. No differences related to psychological distress and usability were found between randomization groups or devices.ConclusionsBoth devices were well received by most patients and health care professionals, and the majority of them encouraged the idea of monitoring vital signs continuously in the general ward. This comprehensive overview of barriers and facilitators of using wireless devices may serve as a guide for future researchers, developers, and health care institutions that consider implementing continuous monitoring in the ward.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT02933307; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02933307.

Project description:BackgroundContinuous monitoring of vital signs (CMVS) using wearable wireless sensors is increasingly available to patients in general wards and can improve outcomes and reduce nurse workload. To assess the potential impact of such systems, successful implementation is important. We developed a CMVS intervention and implementation strategy and evaluated its success in 2 general wards.ObjectiveWe aimed to assess and compare intervention fidelity in 2 wards (internal medicine and general surgery) of a large teaching hospital.MethodsA mixed methods sequential explanatory design was used. After thorough training and preparation, CMVS was implemented-in parallel with the standard intermittent manual measurements-and executed for 6 months in each ward. Heart rate and respiratory rate were measured using a chest-worn wearable sensor, and vital sign trends were visualized on a digital platform. Trends were routinely assessed and reported each nursing shift without automated alarms. The primary outcome was intervention fidelity, defined as the proportion of written reports and related nurse activities in case of deviating trends comparing early (months 1-2), mid- (months 3-4), and late (months 5-6) implementation periods. Explanatory interviews with nurses were conducted.ResultsThe implementation strategy was executed as planned. A total of 358 patients were included, resulting in 45,113 monitored hours during 6142 nurse shifts. In total, 10.3% (37/358) of the sensors were replaced prematurely because of technical failure. Mean intervention fidelity was 70.7% (SD 20.4%) and higher in the surgical ward (73.6%, SD 18.1% vs 64.1%, SD 23.7%; P<.001). Fidelity decreased over the implementation period in the internal medicine ward (76%, 57%, and 48% at early, mid-, and late implementation, respectively; P<.001) but not significantly in the surgical ward (76% at early implementation vs 74% at midimplementation [P=.56] vs 70.7% at late implementation [P=.07]). No nursing activities were needed based on vital sign trends for 68.7% (246/358) of the patients. In 174 reports of 31.3% (112/358) of the patients, observed deviating trends led to 101 additional bedside assessments of patients and 73 consultations by physicians. The main themes that emerged during interviews (n=21) included the relative priority of CMVS in nurse work, the importance of nursing assessment, the relatively limited perceived benefits for patient care, and experienced mediocre usability of the technology.ConclusionsWe successfully implemented a system for CMVS at scale in 2 hospital wards, but our results show that intervention fidelity decreased over time, more in the internal medicine ward than in the surgical ward. This decrease appeared to depend on multiple ward-specific factors. Nurses' perceptions regarding the value and benefits of the intervention varied. Implications for optimal implementation of CMVS include engaging nurses early, seamless integration into electronic health records, and sophisticated decision support tools for vital sign trend interpretation.

Project description:In recent years, noncontact measurements of vital signs using cameras received a great amount of interest. However, some questions are unanswered: (i) Which vital sign is monitored using what type of camera? (ii) What is the performance and which factors affect it? (iii) Which health issues are addressed by camera-based techniques? Following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement, we conduct a systematic review of continuous camera-based vital sign monitoring using Scopus, PubMed, and the Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) databases. We consider articles that were published between January 2018 and April 2021 in the English language. We include five vital signs: heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), blood pressure (BP), body skin temperature (BST), and oxygen saturation (SpO2). In total, we retrieve 905 articles and screened them regarding title, abstract, and full text. One hundred and four articles remained: 60, 20, 6, 2, and 1 of the articles focus on HR, RR, BP, BST, and SpO2, respectively, and 15 on multiple vital signs. HR and RR can be measured using red, green, and blue (RGB) and near-infrared (NIR) as well as far-infrared (FIR) cameras. So far, BP and SpO2 are monitored with RGB cameras only, whereas BST is derived from FIR cameras only. Under ideal conditions, the root mean squared error is around 2.60 bpm, 2.22 cpm, 6.91 mm Hg, 4.88 mm Hg, and 0.86 °C for HR, RR, systolic BP, diastolic BP, and BST, respectively. The estimated error for SpO2 is less than 1%, but it increases with movements of the subject and the camera-subject distance. Camera-based remote monitoring mainly explores intensive care, post-anaesthesia care, and sleep monitoring, but also explores special diseases such as heart failure. The monitored targets are newborn and pediatric patients, geriatric patients, athletes (e.g., exercising, cycling), and vehicle drivers. Camera-based techniques monitor HR, RR, and BST in static conditions within acceptable ranges for certain applications. The research gaps are large and heterogeneous populations, real-time scenarios, moving subjects, and accuracy of BP and SpO2 monitoring.