Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40333921›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Implementation of a surgical ward innovation: Telemonitoring controlled by healthdot [SWITCH-trial PROTOCOL].

Friso Schonck, Misha Luyer, Nardo van der Meer, Arthur Bouwman, Simon Nienhuijs

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05956210 (SWITCH- Surgical Ward Innovation), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT05956210 unknown statusnot on this map

SWITCH- Surgical Ward Innovation: Telemonitoring Controlled by Healthdot Evaluation of Implementation

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCatharina Ziekenhuis EindhovenRan2022 to 2023Enrolled500ConditionsMonitoringArmsEvaluation of implementation regarding Philips Healthdot as monitoring device of hospitalized patients at one surgical ward
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
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

5 authors.

Friso SchonckDepartment of Surgery, Catharina hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3465-5849
Misha LuyerDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Signal Processing Systems, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.
Nardo van der MeerDepartment of Anesthesiology, Catharina hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6815-7501
Arthur BouwmanDepartment of Anesthesiology, Catharina hospital Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2051-5947
Simon NienhuijsDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Signal Processing Systems, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring patients' vital signs is important to detect abnormalities that may indicate a disturbed postoperative course. However, manual monitoring or so-called spot checks performed by nursing staff require a significant amount and are time-consuming. Wearable devices have been shown to be at least equally effective in collecting these data and have the possibility for continuous monitoring. This technology could enhance improvements in early warning score systems by continuous measurement or ease onward monitoring after earlier discharge. Furthermore, the implementation of wearables for patient monitoring may also decrease the workload for nursing staff. However, it is still unclear how workload is impacted after the implementation of continuous monitoring by wearables in a surgical ward.

methodsThe level of workload for nursing staff will be assessed by the Integrated Workload Scale [IWS] in an observational study on the stepwise implementation of continuous monitoring at a surgical ward. In a 6-month period, the vital parameters of 500 oncological surgery patients will be recorded using an accelerometer [Healthdot ® Philips] which measures heart rate and respiration rate, gradually leaving out spot checks by nurses. Proctor et al.'s taxonomy of implementation outcomes is used to guide other outcomes: acceptability, appropriateness, feasibility, adoption, penetration, implementation cost and sustainability. Measurements will be performed by device performances of signal noise ratio and [suspected] adverse events, questionnaires Evidence Based Practice Attitude [EBPAS] and System Usability Scale [SUS] and a focus group information that will be processed and objectified by means of a Braun and Clarke thematic analysis. DISCUSSION: Implementation is complex, especially within healthcare. While the validity of monitoring devices has been studied, their implementation in daily practice has been explored to a limited extent. This study focuses on implementation, with nurses as the primary research group.

aimThe aim is to investigate the implementation of continuous monitoring using a wearable device regarding efficiency and workload primarily on nursing perspective.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT05956210, Registered on 21 July 2023.

Indexed as

Monitoring, PhysiologicWearable Electronic DevicesHeart RateHumansObservational Studies as TopicRespiratory RateTelemedicineVital SignsWorkload

Identifiers

PMID40333921
PMCPMC12057926

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.