Experiences of current vital signs monitoring practices and views of wearable monitoring: A qualitative study in patients and nurses.
Carlos Areia, Elizabeth King, Jody Ede and 4 others
PMID 34655093WHAT IT FOUND
Nurses used vital signs to justify escalation, but doubted automated readings and often checked pulse, blood pressure and respiration manually.
Continuous monitoring was seen to help safety, but also to reduce contact and mobility. Wearable monitoring was welcomed if it did not add alarms.
Key findings
01Nurses described using vital sign and early warning score data to justify escalation, especially when they were worried about a patient who had not reached the action threshold.
02When nurses doubted automated readings, they often returned to manual checks, and most described assessing respiratory rate manually.
03Participants said ambulatory wearable monitoring should avoid adding ward noise and should support clinical staff rather than replace them.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for RNs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample was small and came from one surgical ward, so it may not represent other wards, hospitals or patient groups. Only nurses and patients were interviewed, so doctors, healthcare assistants and other staff perspectives are missing. Some patient interviews happened at the bedside, which may have made it harder to speak openly. The study explored views about wearable monitoring, not whether it improved outcomes, so it cannot show that the technology works. It was a service evaluation, not a test of a monitoring intervention.
Declared interests
The study was funded by the NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. No author disclosures are given in the supplied text.
The easy way to misread this
Do not conclude that wearable monitoring can replace bedside vital sign checks or nurse assessment. The study reports patients' and nurses' views, not tested outcomes, and participants said the technology should support clinical staff, not replace them.