Usefulness of a mobile phone application for respiratory rate measurement in adult patients

Society of Critical Care Medicine Guidelines on Recognizing and Responding to Clinical Deterioration Outside the ICU: 2023

RATIONALE

Clinical deterioration of patients hospitalized outside the ICU is a source of potentially reversible morbidity and mortality. To address this, some acute care hospitals have implemented systems aimed at detecting and responding to such patients.

OBJECTIVES

To provide evidence-based recommendations for hospital clinicians and administrators to optimize recognition and response to clinical deterioration in non-ICU patients.

PANEL DESIGN

The 25-member panel included representatives from medicine, nursing, respiratory therapy, pharmacy, patient/family partners, and clinician-methodologists with expertise in developing evidence-based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

METHODS

We generated actionable questions using the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcomes (PICO) format and performed a systematic review of the literature to identify and synthesize the best available evidence. We used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Approach to determine certainty in the evidence and to formulate recommendations and good practice statements (GPSs).

RESULTS

The panel issued 10 statements on recognizing and responding to non-ICU patients with critical illness. Healthcare personnel and institutions should ensure that all vital sign acquisition is timely and accurate (GPS). We make no recommendation on the use of continuous vital sign monitoring among unselected patients. We suggest focused education for bedside clinicians in signs of clinical deterioration, and we also suggest that patient/family/care partners' concerns be included in decisions to obtain additional opinions and help (both conditional recommendations). We recommend hospital-wide deployment of a rapid response team or medical emergency team (RRT/MET) with explicit activation criteria (strong recommendation). We make no recommendation about RRT/MET professional composition or inclusion of palliative care members on the responding team but suggest that the skill set of responders should include eliciting patients' goals of care (conditional recommendation). Finally, quality improvement processes should be part of a rapid response system.

CONCLUSIONS

The panel provided guidance to inform clinicians and administrators on effective processes to improve the care of patients at-risk for developing critical illness outside the ICU.

Performance and usability of a new mobile application for measuring respiratory rate in young children with acute lower respiratory infections

OBJECTIVES

Respiratory rate (RR) measurement is critical to diagnosing pneumonia in resource-constrained settings, but accurate RR measurement is challenging. The acute lower respiratory illness treatment and evaluation (ALRITE) mobile phone application (app), designed to help healthcare workers (HCWs) manage pediatric respiratory illnesses, includes a semiautomated RR counter. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy and usability of the ALRITE RR counter and a commercially available RR counter app, RRate, with a reference standard.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional observational study of HCWs. Participants used both apps to measure the RR of pediatric patients from standardized videos. The reference standard was determined by consensus of a manual 1-min count by two providers. We assessed agreement using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient and constructed Bland-Altman plots to determine bias and limits of agreement. Participants completed a usability survey.

RESULTS

Thirty-nine HCWs participated. The agreement between the apps and reference standard (Spearman's coefficient) was 0.83 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.78-0.87) for ALRITE and 0.62 (95% CI: 0.52-0.70) for RRate. ALRITE had a bias of -2 breaths/min (lower limit of agreement [LoA] -16 to +12) and RRate had a bias of -0.4 breaths/min (LoA -24 to +23) compared to the reference standard. Both apps had a poorer agreement at higher RRs. Based on usability survey responses, 95% found ALRITE easy to use.

CONCLUSIONS

The ALRITE RR counter has acceptable accuracy for counting RR in infants with respiratory distress, appears to be more accurate than a commercially available option, and was user-friendly. The ALRITE RR counter is a promising tool for meriting evaluation in real-world settings.