ArticleBMC health services research2022
Implementation and experience of an innovative smart patient care system: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient Acceptance and Barriers to IoT Usage in Health Care: Systematic Literature Review.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2026Pooled it
- Current status and future outlook of artificial intelligence and automation in intravenous infusion systems.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Review
- Development of reconfigurable smart medical wards using integrated components and complex features.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Improving Alarm Management Practices: Wireless Bed Exit Alerts on Medical-Surgical Units.Computers, informatics, nursing : CIN · 2025Article
- Enhancing Patient Safety Through an Integrated Internet of Things Patient Care System: Large Quasi-Experimental Study on Fall Prevention.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
- The psychometric properties of the Persian version of the innovation support inventory (ISI-12) in clinical nurses: a methodological cross-sectional study.BMC nursing · 2024Article
- The digital transformation of nursing practice: an analysis of advanced IoT technologies and smart nursing systems.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
- Creating an Implementation Enhancement Plan for a Digital Patient Fall Prevention Platform Using the CFIR-ERIC Approach: A Qualitative Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Deriving Multiple-Layer Information from a Motion-Sensing Mattress for Precision Care.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Creating the future of nursing in the post-pandemic world.Belitung nursing journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough a patient care system may help nurses handle patients' requests or provide timely assistance to those in need, there are a number of barriers faced by nurses in handling alarms.
methodsThe aim of the study was to describe the implementation and experience of an innovative smart patient care system (SPCS). This study applied a cross-sectional descriptive design. We recruited 82 nurses from a medical center in Taiwan, with 25 nurses from a ward that had introduced an SPCS and 57 nurses from wards that used the traditional patient care system (TPCS). The major advantages of the SPCS compared to the TPCS include the specification of alarm purposes, the routing of alarms directly to the mobile phone; the capability of immediate communication via phone; and three-stage bed-exit alerts with low false alarm rate.
resultsApproximately 56% of nurses in the TPCS wards perceived that the bed-exit alert was easily ignorable, while this rate was reduced to 32% in the SPCS ward. The immediate communication via phone was considered as the most helpful function of the SPCS, with a weighted average score of 3.92/5, and 52% of nurses strongly agreed (5/5) that this function was helpful. The second-highest ranked function was the three-stage bed-exit alert, with an average score of 3.68/5, with approximately 24% of nurses strongly agreeing (5/5) that this function was helpful. The average response time using TPCS was 145.66 s while it was 59.02 s using the SPCS (P < .001). Among the 110 observed alarms in the SPCS ward, none of them were false bed-exit alarms. In comparison, among 120 observed alarms in the TPCS wards, 42 (35%) of them were false bed-exit alarms (P < .001). In this study, we found that 30.91% of alarms using SPCS were processed because nurses received and responded to the alert via mobile phone.
conclusionsA smart patient care system is needed to help nurses make more informed prioritization decisions between responding to alarms and ongoing tasks and finally assist them in adjusting their work in various situations to improve work efficiency and care quality.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.