Patient acceptability of wearable vital sign monitoring technologies in the acute care setting: A systematic review

Continuous Vital Signs Monitoring with a Wireless Device on a General Ward: A Survey to Explore Nurses' Experiences in a Post-Implementation Period

BACKGROUND

Nurse engagement, perceived need and usefulness affect healthcare technology use, acceptance and improvements in quality, safety and accessibility of healthcare. Nurses' opinions regarding continuous monitoring appear to be positive. However, facilitators and barriers were little studied. This study explored nurses' post-implementation experiences of the facilitators and barriers to continuously monitoring patients' vital signs using a wireless device on general hospital wards.

METHODS

This study employed a cross-sectional survey. Vocational and registered nurses from three general wards in a Dutch tertiary university hospital participated in a survey comprising open and closed questions. The data were analysed using thematic analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Fifty-eight nurses (51.3%) completed the survey. Barriers and facilitators were identified under four key themes: (1) timely signalling and early action, (2) time savings and time consumption, (3) patient comfort and satisfaction and (4) preconditions.

CONCLUSIONS

According to nurses, early detection and intervention for deteriorating patients facilitate the use and acceptance of continuously monitoring vital signs. Barriers primarily concern difficulties connecting patients correctly to the devices and system.

The Hospital to Home study (H2H): smartwatch technology-enabled rehabilitation following hip fracture in older adults, a feasibility non-randomised trial

Introduction

Hip fractures are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study assessed the feasibility of smartwatches supporting rehabilitation post-surgical fixation.

Methods

This UK-based non-randomised intervention study recruited patients who had sustained a hip fracture (age ≥65 and Abbreviated Mental Test Score ≥8/10), following surgical fixation, at one hospital to the intervention group, and at a second hospital to a usual care group. The intervention group received a smartwatch (Fitbit Charge 4) and app (CUSH Health©). Feasibility measures included retention and completion of outcome measures.

Results

Between November 2020 and November 21, 66 participants were recruited (median age 78 (IQR 74-84)). The intervention cohort were younger, with no significant differences in frailty or multi-morbidity between the cohorts. Hospital stay was shorter in the intervention cohort (10 days (7-16) versus 12 (10-18), p=0.05). There were 15 falls-related readmissions in the control cohort, including 11 fractures, with none in the intervention cohort (p=0.016). In the intervention group, median daily step counts increased from 477 (320-697) in hospital, to 931 (505-1238) 1 week post-discharge, to 5,352 (3,552-7,944) at 12-weeks (p=0.001). Of the intervention cohort, 12 withdrew.

Conclusion

This study found that smartwatch-supported rehabilitation was feasible in this cohort. A significant proportion of patients either chose not to participate or withdrew; such a decrease in participants must be addressed to avoid digital exclusion. Falls and fracture-related readmissions were more frequent at the control site compared with the intervention site.

Novel wearable and contactless heart rate, respiratory rate, and oxygen saturation monitoring devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to identify, classify and evaluate the body of evidence on novel wearable and contactless devices that measure heart rate, respiratory rate and oxygen saturations in the clinical setting. We included any studies of hospital inpatients, including sleep study clinics. Eighty-four studies were included in the final review. There were 56 studies of wearable devices and 29 of contactless devices. One study assessed both types of device. A high risk of patient selection and rater bias was present in proportionally more studies assessing contactless devices compared with studies assessing wearable devices (p = 0.023 and p < 0.0001, respectively). There was high but equivalent likelihood of blinding bias between the two types of studies (p = 0.076). Wearable device studies were commercially available devices validated in acute clinical settings by clinical staff and had more real-time data analysis (p = 0.04). Contactless devices were more experimental, and data were analysed post-hoc. Pooled estimates of mean (95%CI) heart rate and respiratory rate bias in wearable devices were 1.25 (-0.31-2.82) beats.min^-1 (pooled 95% limits of agreement -9.36-10.08) and 0.68 (0.05-1.32) breaths.min^-1 (pooled 95% limits of agreement -5.65-6.85). The pooled estimate for mean (95%CI) heart rate and respiratory rate bias in contactless devices was 2.18 (3.31-7.66) beats.min^-1 (pooled limits of agreement -6.71-10.88) and 0.30 (-0.26-0.87) breaths.min^-1 (pooled 95% limits of agreement -3.94-4.29). Only two studies of wearable devices measured S_p O₂ ; these reported mean measurement biases of 3.54% (limits of agreement -5.65-11.45%) and 2.9% (-7.4-1.7%). Heterogeneity was observed across studies, but absent when devices were grouped by measurement modality and reference standard. We conclude that, while studies of wearable devices were of slightly better quality than contactless devices, in general all studies of novel devices were of low quality, with small (< 100) patient datasets, typically not blinded and often using inappropriate statistical techniques. Both types of devices were statistically equivalent in accuracy and precision, but wearable devices demonstrated less measurement bias and more precision at extreme vital signs. The statistical variability in precision and accuracy between studies is partially explained by differences in reference standards.

Implementability of healthcare interventions: an overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework

Background

Implementation research may play an important role in reducing research waste by identifying strategies that support translation of evidence into practice. Implementation of healthcare interventions is influenced by multiple factors including the organisational context, implementation strategies and features of the intervention as perceived by people delivering and receiving the intervention. Recently, concepts relating to perceived features of interventions have been gaining traction in published literature, namely, acceptability, fidelity, feasibility, scalability and sustainability. These concepts may influence uptake of healthcare interventions, yet there seems to be little consensus about their nature and impact. The aim of this paper is to develop a testable conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions that includes these five concepts.

Methods

A multifaceted approach was used to develop and refine a conceptual framework of implementability of healthcare interventions. An overview of reviews identified reviews published between January 2000 and March 2021 that focused on at least one of the five concepts in relation to a healthcare intervention. These findings informed the development of a preliminary framework of implementability of healthcare interventions which was presented to a panel of experts. A nominal group process was used to critique, refine and agree on a final framework.

Results

A total of 252 publications were included in the overview of reviews. Of these, 32% were found to be feasible, 4% reported sustainable changes in practice and 9% were scaled up to other populations and/or settings. The expert panel proposed that scalability and sustainability of a healthcare intervention are dependent on its acceptability, fidelity and feasibility. Furthermore, acceptability, fidelity and feasibility require re-evaluation over time and as the intervention is developed and then implemented in different settings or with different populations. The final agreed framework of implementability provides the basis for a chronological, iterative approach to planning for wide-scale, long-term implementation of healthcare interventions.

Conclusions

We recommend that researchers consider the factors acceptability, fidelity and feasibility (proposed to influence sustainability and scalability) during the preliminary phases of intervention development, evaluation and implementation, and iteratively check these factors in different settings and over time.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13012-021-01171-7.