Adeline Adwoa Boatin1, Blair Johnson Wylie2, Ilona Goldfarb2, Robin Azevedo3, Elena Pittel3, Courtney Ng4, Jessica Elizabeth Haberer5. 1. 1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Massachusetts General Hospital , Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. 2 Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital , Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. 3. 3 Department of Nursing, Massachusetts General Hospital , Boston, Massachusetts. 4. 4 Harvard School of Public Health , Boston, Massachusetts. 5. 5 Massachusetts General Hospital Center for Global Health, Harvard Medical School , Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the functionality and acceptability of a wireless vital sign monitor in an inpatient obstetric unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pregnant women at a U.S. tertiary-care hospital wore a wireless vital sign sensor that captures heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature. Measurements were compared with vital signs obtained by standard devices. We defined continuous capture of vital signs for 30 min with wireless data transfer to a central monitor as functional success. Acceptability was assessed per the pregnant women and nurses observing the device. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to assess agreement between the wireless sensor and standard measurements. RESULTS: Thirty of 32 enrolled pregnant women had successful monitoring; 2 cases were stopped early for non-study-related reasons. Comparing wireless sensor and standard measurements, the mean difference (limits of agreement) values at the 25th and 75th percentiles were 1.6 (±13.2) and 4.2 (±18.6) heartbeats/min, 4.2 (±6.1) and 0.7 (±5.4) respirations/min, and 0.02°C (±1.5) and 0.5°C (±1.8), respectively. Most pregnant women found the device comfortable, likeable, and useful (78%, 81%, and 97%, respectively); 80% of nurses found the monitor easy to use, and 84% would recommend it to a patient. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully obtained maternal vital signs using a simple wireless monitor with high acceptability. Well-validated monitors of this nature could significantly alleviate the human resource burden of monitoring during labor and confer greatly desired mobility to laboring pregnant women, although incorporation of blood pressure monitoring will be critical.
OBJECTIVE: To test the functionality and acceptability of a wireless vital sign monitor in an inpatient obstetric unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pregnant women at a U.S. tertiary-care hospital wore a wireless vital sign sensor that captures heart rate, respiratory rate, and temperature. Measurements were compared with vital signs obtained by standard devices. We defined continuous capture of vital signs for 30 min with wireless data transfer to a central monitor as functional success. Acceptability was assessed per the pregnant women and nurses observing the device. Bland-Altman plots were constructed to assess agreement between the wireless sensor and standard measurements. RESULTS: Thirty of 32 enrolled pregnant women had successful monitoring; 2 cases were stopped early for non-study-related reasons. Comparing wireless sensor and standard measurements, the mean difference (limits of agreement) values at the 25th and 75th percentiles were 1.6 (±13.2) and 4.2 (±18.6) heartbeats/min, 4.2 (±6.1) and 0.7 (±5.4) respirations/min, and 0.02°C (±1.5) and 0.5°C (±1.8), respectively. Most pregnant women found the device comfortable, likeable, and useful (78%, 81%, and 97%, respectively); 80% of nurses found the monitor easy to use, and 84% would recommend it to a patient. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully obtained maternal vital signs using a simple wireless monitor with high acceptability. Well-validated monitors of this nature could significantly alleviate the human resource burden of monitoring during labor and confer greatly desired mobility to laboring pregnant women, although incorporation of blood pressure monitoring will be critical.
Authors: Sarah J Rhoads; Christina I Serrano; Christian E Lynch; Songthip T Ounpraseuth; C Heath Gauss; Nalin Payakachat; Curtis L Lowery; Hari Eswaran Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Adeline A Boatin; Joseph Ngonzi; Blair J Wylie; Henry M Lugobe; Lisa M Bebell; Godfrey Mugyenyi; Sudi Mohamed; Kenia Martinez; Nicholas Musinguzi; Christina Psaros; Joshua P Metlay; Jessica E Haberer Journal: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Date: 2021-02-12 Impact factor: 3.007
Authors: Dennis Ryu; Dong Hyun Kim; Joan T Price; Jong Yoon Lee; Ha Uk Chung; Emily Allen; Jessica R Walter; Hyoyoung Jeong; Jingyue Cao; Elena Kulikova; Hajar Abu-Zayed; Rachel Lee; Knute L Martell; Michael Zhang; Brianna R Kampmeier; Marc Hill; JooHee Lee; Edward Kim; Yerim Park; Hokyung Jang; Hany Arafa; Claire Liu; Maureen Chisembele; Bellington Vwalika; Ntazana Sindano; M Bridget Spelke; Amy S Paller; Ashish Premkumar; William A Grobman; Jeffrey S A Stringer; John A Rogers; Shuai Xu Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Mariska Weenk; Harry van Goor; Bas Frietman; Lucien Jlpg Engelen; Cornelis Jhm van Laarhoven; Jan Smit; Sebastian Jh Bredie; Tom H van de Belt Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2017-07-05 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Jobbe P L Leenen; Crista Leerentveld; Joris D van Dijk; Henderik L van Westreenen; Lisette Schoonhoven; Gijsbert A Patijn Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Mariska Weenk; Sebastian J Bredie; Mats Koeneman; Gijs Hesselink; Harry van Goor; Tom H van de Belt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 5.428