Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34655093›Full record

ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2022

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, Louise Young, Lionel Tarassenko, Peter Watkinson, Sarah Vollam

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Transforming in-clinic post-operative and intermediate care with cosinuss°.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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.

Carlos AreiaCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4668-7069
Elizabeth KingTherapies Clinical Service Unit, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7360-7004
Jody EdeCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7289-6991
Louise YoungCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9094-1733
Lionel TarassenkoNational Institute for Health Research, Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0118-1646
Peter WatkinsonCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1023-3927
Sarah VollamCritical Care Research Group, Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2835-6271

Funding

NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre NIHR BRC-1215-20008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimsTo understand current experiences of vital signs monitoring of patients and clinical staff on a surgical ward, and views on the introduction of wearable ambulatory monitoring into the general ward environment.

designQualitative study.

methodsSemi-structured interviews using topic guides were conducted with 15 patients and 15 nurses on a surgical ward between July 2018 and August 2019. The concept of ambulatory wearable devices for clinical monitoring was introduced at the end of the interview.

resultsThree interconnected themes were identified. Vital sign data as evidence for escalation, examined nurses' use of data to support escalation of care and the implications for patients perceived to be deteriorating who have not reached the threshold for escalation. The second theme, Trustworthiness of vital sign data, described nurses' practice of using manual measurements to recheck or confirm automated vital signs readings when concerned. The final theme, finding a balance between continuous and intermittent monitoring, both patients and nurses agreed that although continuous monitoring may improve safety and reassurance, these needed to be balanced with multiple limitations. Factors to be considered included noise pollution, comfort, and impact on patient mobility and independence. Introduction of the concept of ambulatory wearable devices was viewed positively by both groups as offering solutions to some of the issues identified with traditional monitoring. However, most agreed that this would not be suitable for all patients and should not replace direct nurse/patient contact.

conclusionBoth patients and staff identified the benefits of continuous monitoring to improve patient safety but, due to limitations, use should be carefully considered and patient-centred. IMPACT: Feedback from nurses and patients suggests there is scope for ambulatory monitoring systems to be integrated into the hospital environment; however, both groups emphasized these should not add more noise to the ward nor replace direct nursing contact.

Indexed as

Nursing Staff, HospitalWearable Electronic DevicesHumansMonitoring, PhysiologicPatient SafetyQualitative ResearchVital Signsacute careacute nursingalarmsclinical datadeteriorationescalationmonitoringnursingvital signswearables

Identifiers

PMID34655093
PMCPMC9293408

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.