C L Downey1, J M Brown2, D G Jayne3, R Randell4. 1. Leeds Institute of Biomedical & Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences Building, St. James's University Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS9 7TF, United Kingdom. Electronic address: c.l.downey@leeds.ac.uk. 2. Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, Worsley Building, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, United Kingdom. 3. Leeds Institute of Biomedical & Clinical Sciences, Clinical Sciences Building, St. James's University Hospital, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS9 7TF, United Kingdom. 4. School of Healthcare, Baines Wing, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9JT, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vital signs monitoring is used to identify deteriorating patients in hospital. The most common tool for vital signs monitoring is an early warning score, although emerging technologies allow for remote, continuous patient monitoring. A number of reviews have examined the impact of continuous monitoring on patient outcomes, but little is known about the patient experience. This study aims to discover what patients think of monitoring in hospital, with a particular emphasis on intermittent early warning scores versus remote continuous monitoring, in order to inform future implementations of continuous monitoring technology. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 12 surgical inpatients as part of a study testing a remote continuous monitoring device. All patients were monitored with both an early warning score and the new device. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS: Patients can see the value in remote, continuous monitoring, particularly overnight. However, patients appreciate the face-to-face aspect of early warning score monitoring as it allows for reassurance, social interaction, and gives them further opportunity to ask questions about their medical care. CONCLUSION: Early warning score systems are widely used to facilitate detection of the deteriorating patient. Continuous monitoring technologies may provide added reassurance. However, patients value personal contact with their healthcare professionals and remote monitoring should not replace this. We suggest that remote monitoring is best introduced in a phased manner, and initially as an adjunct to usual care, with careful consideration of the patient experience throughout.
BACKGROUND: Vital signs monitoring is used to identify deteriorating patients in hospital. The most common tool for vital signs monitoring is an early warning score, although emerging technologies allow for remote, continuous patient monitoring. A number of reviews have examined the impact of continuous monitoring on patient outcomes, but little is known about the patient experience. This study aims to discover what patients think of monitoring in hospital, with a particular emphasis on intermittent early warning scores versus remote continuous monitoring, in order to inform future implementations of continuous monitoring technology. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 12 surgical inpatients as part of a study testing a remote continuous monitoring device. All patients were monitored with both an early warning score and the new device. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. FINDINGS:Patients can see the value in remote, continuous monitoring, particularly overnight. However, patients appreciate the face-to-face aspect of early warning score monitoring as it allows for reassurance, social interaction, and gives them further opportunity to ask questions about their medical care. CONCLUSION: Early warning score systems are widely used to facilitate detection of the deteriorating patient. Continuous monitoring technologies may provide added reassurance. However, patients value personal contact with their healthcare professionals and remote monitoring should not replace this. We suggest that remote monitoring is best introduced in a phased manner, and initially as an adjunct to usual care, with careful consideration of the patient experience throughout.
Authors: Jobbe P L Leenen; Eline M Dijkman; Joris D van Dijk; Henderik L van Westreenen; Cor Kalkman; Lisette Schoonhoven; Gijsbert A Patijn Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-17 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Fahad Mujtaba Iqbal; Meera Joshi; Gary Davies; Sadia Khan; Hutan Ashrafian; Ara Darzi Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.295
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: David Werner Tscholl; Julian Rössler; Sadiq Said; Alexander Kaserer; Donat Rudolf Spahn; Christoph Beat Nöthiger Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 3.576
Authors: Ghayth AlMahadin; Ahmad Lotfi; Eva Zysk; Francesco Luke Siena; Marie Mc Carthy; Philip Breedon Journal: BMC Neurol Date: 2020-11-18 Impact factor: 2.474
Authors: Carlos Areia; Christopher Biggs; Mauro Santos; Neal Thurley; Stephen Gerry; Lionel Tarassenko; Peter Watkinson; Sarah Vollam Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 9.097