Are current wireless monitoring systems capable of detecting adverse events in high-risk surgical patients? A descriptive study. (May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Breteler, Martine J.M.; KleinJan, Eline; Numan, Lieke; Ruurda, Jelle P.; Van Hillegersberg, Richard; Leenen, Luke P.H.; Hermans, Mathilde; Kalkman, Cor J.; Blokhuis, Taco J.
• Is Part Of: Injury. Volume 51(2020)Supplement 2
• Page Start: S97
• Page End: S105
• Publication Date: 2020-05
• Subjects: Telemedicine -- Wearable monitoring -- mHealth -- Remote patient monitoring -- Vital signs; Wounds and injuries -- Surgery -- Periodicals; Accidents -- Periodicals; Wounds and Injuries -- surgery -- Periodicals; Lésions et blessures -- Chirurgie -- Périodiques; Electronic journals; Electronic journals; 617.1
• DOI: 10.1016/j.injury.2019.11.018
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0020-1383

Abstract

Highlights: Current systems for wireless patient monitoring are capable to detect abnormalities in vital signs of patients that developed adverse events. In vital sign recordings of patients without adverse events, abnormalities in vital signs occurred too, but less frequent and often only transient. Remote patient monitoring may have potential to improve patient safety by generating early warnings for deterioration to nursing staff. Abstract: Background: Adverse events are common in high-risk surgical patients, but early detection is difficult. Recent innovations have resulted in wireless and 'wearable' sensors, which may capture patient deterioration at an early stage, but little is known regarding their ability to timely detect events. The objective of this study is to describe the ability of currently available wireless sensors to detect adverse events in high-risk patients. Methods: A descriptive analysis was performed of all vital signs trend data obtained during an observational comparison study of wearable sensors for vital signs monitoring in high-risk surgical patients during the initial days of recovery at a surgical step-down unit (SDU) and subsequent traumatology or surgical oncology ward. Heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR) and oxygen saturation (SpO2 ) were continuously recorded. Vital sign trend patterns of patients that developed adverse events were described and compared to vital sign recordings of patients without occurrence of adverse events. Two wearable patch sensors were used (SensiumVitals and HealthPatch), a bed-based mattress sensor (EarlySense) and a patient-worn monitor (Masimo Radius-7). Results: Twenty adverse events occurred in 11 of the 31 patients included. Atrial fibrillation (AF) was most common (20%). The onset of AF was recognizable as a sudden increase in HR in all recordings, and all patients with new-onset AF after esophagectomy developed other postoperative complications. Patients who developed respiratory insufficiency showed an increase in RR and a decrease in SpO2, but an increase in HR was not always visible. In patients without adverse events, temporary periods of high HR and RR are observed as well, but these were transient and less frequent. Conclusions: Current systems for remote wireless patient monitoring on the ward are capable of detecting abnormalities in vital sign patterns in patients who develop adverse events. Remote patient monitoring may have potential to improve patient safety by generating early warnings for deterioration to nursing staff.