Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34032574›Full record

ReviewJMIR human factors2021

Augmenting Critical Care Patient Monitoring Using Wearable Technology: Review of Usability and Human Factors.

Evismar Andrade, Leo Quinlan, Richard Harte, Dara Byrne, Enda Fallon, Martina Kelly, Siobhan Casey, Frank Kirrane, Paul O'Connor, Denis O'Hora and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR human factors, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

15 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Evismar Andrade *Electrical & Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3236-2650
Leo QuinlanHuman Movement Laboratory, CÚRAM Centre for Research in Medical Devices, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4011-6732
Richard HarteElectrical & Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6208-4049
Dara ByrneGeneral Practice, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9176-0635
Enda FallonMechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8656-9422
Martina KellyMechanical Engineering, School of Engineering, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9964-4302
Siobhan CaseyIntensive Care Unit, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8820-4803
Frank KirraneMedical Physics and Clinical Engineering, University Hospital Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0716-625X
Paul O'ConnorGeneral Practice, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9036-098X
Denis O'HoraSchool of Psychology, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3776-6782
Michael ScullyAnaesthesia, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7912-7474
John LaffeyAnaesthesia, School of Medicine, NUI Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1246-9573
Patrick PladysCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes (CHU Rennes), Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4305-3765
Alain BeuchéeCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes (CHU Rennes), Rennes, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0064-7085
Gearoid ÓLaighinElectrical & Electronic Engineering, School of Engineering, National University of Ireland, Galway, Galway, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1885-814X
Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway · IECentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Rennes · FRUniversity Hospital Galway · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundContinuous monitoring of the vital signs of critical care patients is an essential component of critical care medicine. For this task, clinicians use a patient monitor (PM), which conveys patient vital sign data through a screen and an auditory alarm system. Some limitations with PMs have been identified in the literature, such as the need for visual contact with the PM screen, which could result in reduced focus on the patient in specific scenarios, and the amount of noise generated by the PM alarm system. With the advancement of material science and electronic technology, wearable devices have emerged as a potential solution for these problems. This review presents the findings of several studies that focused on the usability and human factors of wearable devices designed for use in critical care patient monitoring.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to review the current state of the art in wearable devices intended for use by clinicians to monitor vital signs of critical care patients in hospital settings, with a focus on the usability and human factors of the devices.

methodsA comprehensive literature search of relevant databases was conducted, and 20 studies were identified and critically reviewed by the authors.

resultsWe identified 3 types of wearable devices: tactile, head-mounted, and smartwatch displays. In most cases, these devices were intended for use by anesthesiologists, but nurses and surgeons were also identified as potentially important users of wearable technology in critical care medicine. Although the studies investigating tactile displays revealed their potential to improve clinical monitoring, usability problems related to comfort need to be overcome before they can be considered suitable for use in clinical practice. Only a few studies investigated the usability and human factors of tactile displays by conducting user testing involving critical care professionals. The studies of head-mounted displays (HMDs) revealed that these devices could be useful in critical care medicine, particularly from an ergonomics point of view. By reducing the amount of time the user spends averting their gaze from the patient to a separate screen, HMDs enable clinicians to improve their patient focus and reduce the potential of repetitive strain injury.

conclusionsResearchers and designers of new wearable devices for use in critical care medicine should strive to achieve not only enhanced performance but also enhanced user experience for their users, especially in terms of comfort and ease of use. These aspects of wearable displays must be extensively tested with the intended end users in a setting that properly reflects the intended context of use before their adoption can be considered in clinical settings.

Indexed as

critical careergonomicshuman factorsmobile phonepatient monitorphysiologic monitorusabilityuser experiencewearable

Identifiers

PMID34032574
PMCPMC8188324
OpenAlexW3110077903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.