Literature DB >> 33325827

Wearability Testing of Ambulatory Vital Sign Monitoring Devices: Prospective Observational Cohort Study.

Carlos Areia1,2, Louise Young1,2, Sarah Vollam1,2, Jody Ede1,2, Mauro Santos2,3, Lionel Tarassenko2,3, Peter Watkinson1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Timely recognition of patient deterioration remains challenging. Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMSs) may provide support to current monitoring practices; however, they need to be thoroughly tested before implementation in the clinical environment for early detection of deterioration.
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the wearability of a selection of commercially available AMSs to inform a future prospective study of ambulatory vital sign monitors in an acute hospital ward.
METHODS: Five pulse oximeters (4 with finger probes and 1 wrist-worn only, collecting pulse rates and oxygen saturation) and 2 chest patches (collecting heart rates and respiratory rates) were selected to be part of this study: The 2 chest-worn patches were VitalPatch (VitalConnect) and Peerbridge Cor (Peerbridge); the 4 wrist-worn devices with finger probe were Nonin WristOx2 3150 (Nonin), Checkme O2+ (Viatom Technology), PC-68B, and AP-20 (both from Creative Medical); and the 1 solely wrist-worn device was Wavelet (Wavelet Health). Adult participants wore each device for up to 72 hours while performing usual "activities of daily living" and were asked to score the perceived exertion and perception of pain or discomfort by using the Borg CR-10 scale; thoughts and feelings caused by the AMS using the Comfort Rating Scale (CRS); and to provide general free text feedback. Median and IQRs were reported and nonparametric tests were used to assess differences between the devices' CRS scores.
RESULTS: Quantitative scores and feedback were collected in 70 completed questionnaires from 20 healthy volunteers, with each device tested approximately 10 times. The Wavelet seemed to be the most wearable device (P<.001) with an overall median (IQR) CRS score of 1.00 (0.88). There were no statistically significant differences in wearability between the chest patches in the CRS total score; however, the VitalPatch was superior in the Attachment section (P=.04) with a median (IQR) score of 3.00 (1.00). General pain and discomfort scores and total percentage of time worn are also reflective of this.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that adult participants prefer to wear wrist-worn pulse oximeters without a probe compressing the fingertip and they prefer to wear a smaller chest patch. A compromise between wearability, reliability, and accuracy should be made for successful and practical integration of AMSs within the hospital environment. ©Carlos Areia, Louise Young, Sarah Vollam, Jody Ede, Mauro Santos, Lionel Tarassenko, Peter Watkinson. Originally published in JMIR mHealth and uHealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 16.12.2020.

Entities:  

Keywords:  ambulatory monitoring; chest patch; pulse oximeter; vital signs; wearability; wearables

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33325827      PMCID: PMC7773507          DOI: 10.2196/20214

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JMIR Mhealth Uhealth        ISSN: 2291-5222            Impact factor:   4.773


  25 in total

Review 1.  Detecting critical illness outside the ICU: the role of track and trigger systems.

Authors:  Jan O Jansen; Brian H Cuthbertson
Journal:  Curr Opin Crit Care       Date:  2010-06       Impact factor: 3.687

Review 2.  A Systematic Review of Wearable Patient Monitoring Systems - Current Challenges and Opportunities for Clinical Adoption.

Authors:  Mirza Mansoor Baig; Hamid GholamHosseini; Aasia A Moqeem; Farhaan Mirza; Maria Lindén
Journal:  J Med Syst       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 4.460

3.  Confidential inquiry into quality of care before admission to intensive care.

Authors:  P McQuillan; S Pilkington; A Allan; B Taylor; A Short; G Morgan; M Nielsen; D Barrett; G Smith; C H Collins
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-06-20

4.  What is the nursing time and workload involved in taking and recording patients' vital signs? A systematic review.

Authors:  Chiara Dall'Ora; Peter Griffiths; Joanna Hope; Hannah Barker; Gary B Smith
Journal:  J Clin Nurs       Date:  2020-02-03       Impact factor: 3.036

5.  Feasibility and Usability Aspects of Continuous Remote Monitoring of Health Status in Palliative Cancer Patients Using Wearables.

Authors:  Matea Pavic; Vanessa Klaas; Gudrun Theile; Johannes Kraft; Gerhard Tröster; Matthias Guckenberger
Journal:  Oncology       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 2.935

Review 6.  The impact of continuous versus intermittent vital signs monitoring in hospitals: A systematic review and narrative synthesis.

Authors:  C L Downey; S Chapman; R Randell; J M Brown; D G Jayne
Journal:  Int J Nurs Stud       Date:  2018-04-21       Impact factor: 5.837

7.  The digital patient.

Authors:  Timothy Bonnici; Lionel Tarassenko; David A Clifton; Peter Watkinson
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2013-06       Impact factor: 2.659

8.  'Errors' and omissions in paper-based early warning scores: the association with changes in vital signs--a database analysis.

Authors:  David A Clifton; Lei Clifton; Dona-Maria Sandu; G B Smith; Lionel Tarassenko; Sarah A Vollam; Peter J Watkinson
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-07-03       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  Smart wearable body sensors for patient self-assessment and monitoring.

Authors:  Geoff Appelboom; Elvis Camacho; Mickey E Abraham; Samuel S Bruce; Emmanuel Lp Dumont; Brad E Zacharia; Randy D'Amico; Justin Slomian; Jean Yves Reginster; Olivier Bruyère; E Sander Connolly
Journal:  Arch Public Health       Date:  2014-08-22

10.  Current Evidence for Continuous Vital Signs Monitoring by Wearable Wireless Devices in Hospitalized Adults: Systematic Review.

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

View more
  7 in total

1.  Physiological sleep measures predict time to 15-year mortality in community adults: Application of a novel machine learning framework.

Authors:  Meredith L Wallace; Timothy S Coleman; Lucas K Mentch; Daniel J Buysse; Jessica L Graves; Erika W Hagen; Martica H Hall; Katie L Stone; Susan Redline; Paul E Peppard
Journal:  J Sleep Res       Date:  2021-05-15       Impact factor: 3.981

2.  A proof of concept for continuous, non-invasive, free-living vital signs monitoring to predict readmission following an acute exacerbation of COPD: a prospective cohort study.

Authors:  Grace Hawthorne; Matthew Richardson; Neil J Greening; Dale Esliger; Samuel Briggs-Price; Emma J Chaplin; Lisa Clinch; Michael C Steiner; Sally J Singh; Mark W Orme
Journal:  Respir Res       Date:  2022-04-26

Review 3.  Human factors in escalating acute ward care: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Jody Ede; Tatjana Petrinic; Verity Westgate; Julie Darbyshire; Ruth Endacott; Peter J Watkinson
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2021-02

4.  ECG Signal Quality Assessments of a Small Bipolar Single-Lead Wearable Patch Sensor.

Authors:  Paurakh Lal Rajbhandary; Gabriel Nallathambi; Nandakumar Selvaraj; Thang Tran; Olivier Colliou
Journal:  Cardiovasc Eng Technol       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 2.495

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

Authors:  Carlos Areia; Elizabeth King; Jody Ede; Louise Young; Lionel Tarassenko; Peter Watkinson; Sarah Vollam
Journal:  J Adv Nurs       Date:  2021-10-15       Impact factor: 3.057

6.  The impact of wearable continuous vital sign monitoring on deterioration detection and clinical outcomes in hospitalised patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

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

Review 7.  Patient and clinician use characteristics and perceptions of pulse oximeter use: A scoping review.

Authors:  Tamara Rosic; Neysa Petrina; Melissa Baysari; Angus Ritchie; Simon K Poon
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2022-03-18       Impact factor: 4.730

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.