Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32459655›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2020

Improvements in Patient Monitoring in the Intensive Care Unit: Survey Study.

Akira-Sebastian Poncette, Lina Mosch, Claudia Spies, Malte Schmieding, Fridtjof Schiefenhövel, Henning Krampe, Felix Balzer

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03514173 (Analysis of Sociotechnical Acceptance and Workflow Integration of a Remote Patient Monitoring Device on an Intensive Care Unit), which is not on this map. Cited by 47 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03514173 completednot on this map

Analysis of Sociotechnical Acceptance and Workflow Integration of a Remote Patient Monitoring Device on an Intensive Care Unit

TypeobservationalSponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2018 to 2023Enrolled208ConditionsRemote Patient Monitoring on Intensive Care UnitArmsRemote Patient Monitoring
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

47 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Evaluation of IMPALA 2.0: Addressing Patient Monitoring in Low-Resource Hospitals in Malawi.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors.

Akira-Sebastian PoncetteDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-4627-7016
Lina MoschDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3154-2745
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1062-0495
Malte SchmiedingDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5844-7791
Fridtjof SchiefenhövelDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1612-9357
Henning KrampeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3553-4064
Felix BalzerDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1575-2056

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDue to demographic change and, more recently, coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the importance of modern intensive care units (ICU) is becoming apparent. One of the key components of an ICU is the continuous monitoring of patients' vital parameters. However, existing advances in informatics, signal processing, or engineering that could alleviate the burden on ICUs have not yet been applied. This could be due to the lack of user involvement in research and development.

objectiveThis study focused on the satisfaction of ICU staff with current patient monitoring and their suggestions for future improvements. We aimed to identify aspects of monitoring that interrupt patient care, display devices for remote monitoring, use cases for artificial intelligence (AI), and whether ICU staff members are willing to improve their digital literacy or contribute to the improvement of patient monitoring. We further aimed to identify differences in the responses of different professional groups.

methodsThis survey study was performed with ICU staff from 4 ICUs of a German university hospital between November 2019 and January 2020. We developed a web-based 36-item survey questionnaire, by analyzing a preceding qualitative interview study with ICU staff, about the clinical requirements of future patient monitoring. Statistical analyses of questionnaire results included median values with their bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals, and chi-square tests to compare the distributions of item responses of the professional groups.

resultsIn total, 86 of the 270 ICU physicians and nurses completed the survey questionnaire. The majority stated they felt confident using the patient monitoring equipment, but that high rates of false-positive alarms and the many sensor cables interrupted patient care. Regarding future improvements, respondents asked for wireless sensors, a reduction in the number of false-positive alarms, and hospital standard operating procedures for alarm management. Responses to the display devices proposed for remote patient monitoring were divided. Most respondents indicated it would be useful for earlier alerting or when they were responsible for multiple wards. AI for ICUs would be useful for early detection of complications and an increased risk of mortality; in addition, the AI could propose guidelines for therapy and diagnostics. Transparency, interoperability, usability, and staff training were essential to promote the use of AI. The majority wanted to learn more about new technologies for the ICU and required more time for learning. Physicians had fewer reservations than nurses about AI-based intelligent alarm management and using mobile phones for remote monitoring.

conclusionsThis survey study of ICU staff revealed key improvements for patient monitoring in intensive care medicine. Hospital providers and medical device manufacturers should focus on reducing false alarms, implementing hospital alarm standard operating procedures, introducing wireless sensors, preparing for the use of AI, and enhancing the digital literacy of ICU staff. Our results may contribute to the user-centered transfer of digital technologies into practice to alleviate challenges in intensive care medicine.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03514173; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03514173.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusCoronavirus InfectionsHealth Care SurveysIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsPneumonia, ViralAdultArtificial IntelligenceCOVID-19Critical CareFemaleGermanyHospitals, UniversityHumansMaleMonitoring, Physiologicdigital healthemailintensive care medicineintensive care unitmonitoringonline surveypatient monitoringREDCaptechnological innovationtransdisciplinaryusabilityuser-centered

Identifiers

PMID32459655
PMCPMC7307326

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.