Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31661079›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2019

Challenges With Continuous Pulse Oximetry Monitoring and Wireless Clinician Notification Systems After Surgery: Reactive Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

Prathiba Harsha, James E Paul, Matthew A Chong, Norm Buckley, Antonella Tidy, Anne Clarke, Diane Buckley, Zenon Sirko, Thuva Vanniyasingam, Jake Walsh and 2 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02907255 (Vital Sign Monitoring With Continuous Pulse Oximetry and Wireless Clinician Notification After Surgery), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02907255 nacompletednot on this map

Vital Sign Monitoring With Continuous Pulse Oximetry and Wireless Clinician Notification After Surgery

TypeinterventionalSponsorMcMaster UniversityRan2010 to 2019Enrolled2,512ConditionsRespiratory DepressionArmsOximetry monitor
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Prathiba HarshaHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6562-0479
James E PaulDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7437-3868
Matthew A ChongWestern University, London, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8619-3119
Norm BuckleyDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1031-6813
Antonella TidyDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7918-2756
Anne ClarkeDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5180-8542
Diane BuckleyDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1150-0572
Zenon SirkoDepartment of Anesthesia, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9250-6839
Thuva VanniyasingamSt. Joseph's Healthcare, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4662-0083
Jake WalshHamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5759-1070
Michael McGillionSchool of Nursing, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1343-7012
Lehana ThabaneHealth Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0355-9734
McMaster University · CAImpact · CAHamilton Health Sciences · CASt. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton · CAWestern University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundResearch has shown that introducing electronic Health (eHealth) patient monitoring interventions can improve healthcare efficiency and clinical outcomes. The VIGILANCE (VItal siGns monItoring with continuous puLse oximetry And wireless cliNiCian notification aftEr surgery) study was a randomized controlled trial (n=2049) designed to assess the impact of continuous vital sign monitoring with alerts sent to nursing staff when respiratory resuscitations with naloxone, code blues, and intensive care unit transfers occurred in a cohort of postsurgical patients in a ward setting. This report identifies and evaluates key issues and challenges associated with introducing wireless monitoring systems into complex hospital infrastructure during the VIGILANCE eHealth intervention implementation. Potential solutions and suggestions for future implementation research are presented.

objectiveThe goals of this study were to: (1) identify issues related to the deployment of the eHealth intervention system of the VIGILANCE study; and (2) evaluate the influence of these issues on intervention adoption.

methodsDuring the VIGILANCE study, issues affecting the implementation of the eHealth intervention were documented on case report forms, alarm event forms, and a nursing user feedback questionnaire. These data were collated by the research and nursing personnel and submitted to the research coordinator. In this evaluation report, the clinical adoption framework was used as a guide to organize the identified issues and evaluate their impact.

resultsUsing the clinical adoption framework, we identified issues within the framework dimensions of people, organization, and implementation at the meso level, as well as standards and funding issues at the macro level. Key issues included: nursing workflow changes with blank alarm forms (24/1030, 2.33%) and missing alarm forms (236/1030, 22.91%), patient withdrawal (110/1030, 10.68%), wireless network connectivity, false alarms (318/1030, 30.87%), monitor malfunction (36/1030, 3.49%), probe issues (16/1030, 1.55%), and wireless network standards. At the micro level, these issues affected the quality of the service in terms of support provided, the quality of the information yielded by the monitors, and the functionality, reliability, and performance of the monitoring system. As a result, these issues impacted access through the decreased ability of nurses to make complete use of the monitors, impacted care quality of the trial intervention through decreased effectiveness, and impacted productivity through interference in the coordination of care, thus decreasing clinical adoption of the monitoring system.

conclusionsPatient monitoring with eHealth technology in surgical wards has the potential to improve patient outcomes. However, proper planning that includes engagement of front-line nurses, installation of appropriate wireless network infrastructure, and use of comfortable cableless devices is required to maximize the potential of eHealth monitoring.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02907255; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02907255.

Indexed as

clinical adoption frameworkcontinuous pulse oximetryevaluation of issuesfalse alarmissuespostoperative monitoringremote monitoringwireless notification

Identifiers

PMID31661079
PMCPMC6913744
OpenAlexW2982399080

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.