Workload associated with manual assessment of vital signs as compared with continuous wireless monitoring

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundVital sign monitoring is considered an essential aspect of clinical care in hospitals. In general wards, this relies on intermittent manual assessments performed by clinical staff at intervals of up to 12 h. In recent years, continuous monitoring of vital signs has been introduced to the clinic, with improved patient outcomes being one of several potential benefits. The aim of this study was to determine the workload difference between continuous monitoring and manual monitoring of vital signs as part of the National Early Warning Score (NEWS).MethodsThree wireless sensors continuously monitored blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxygen saturation in 20 patients admitted to the general hospital ward. The duration needed for equipment set‐up and maintenance for continuous monitoring in a 24‐h period was recorded and compared with the time spent on manual assessments and documentation of vital signs performed by clinical staff according to the NEWS.ResultsThe time used for continuous monitoring was 6.0 (IQR 3.2; 7.2) min per patient per day vs. 14 (9.7; 32) min per patient per day for the NEWS. Median difference in duration for monitoring of vital signs was 9.9 (95% CI 5.6; 21) min per patient per day between NEWS and continuous monitoring (p < .001). Time used for continuous monitoring in isolated patients was 6.6 (4.6; 12) min per patient per day as compared with 22 (9.7; 94) min per patient per day for NEWS.ConclusionThe use of continuous monitoring was associated with a significant reduction in workload in terms of time for monitoring as compared with manual assessment of vital signs.