Abstract
Background
As a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Sydney Local Health District in New South Wales, Australia, launched the rpavirtual program, the first full-scale virtual hospital in Australia, to remotely monitor and follow up stable patients with COVID-19. As part of the intervention, a pulse oximeter wearable device was delivered to patients to monitor their oxygen saturation levels, a critical indicator of COVID-19 patient deterioration. Understanding users’ perceptions toward the device is fundamental to assessing its usability and acceptability and contributing to the effectiveness of the intervention, but no research to date has explored the user experience of the pulse oximeter for remote monitoring in this setting.
Objective
This study aimed to explore the use, performance, and acceptability of the pulse oximeter by clinicians and patients in rpavirtual during COVID-19.
Methods
Semistructured interviews and usability testing were conducted. Stable adult patients with COVID-19 (aged ≥18 years) who used the pulse oximeter and were monitored by rpavirtual, and rpavirtual clinicians monitoring these patients were interviewed. Clinicians could be nurses, doctors, or staff who were part of the team that assisted patients with the use of the pulse oximeter. Usability testing was conducted with patients who had the pulse oximeter when they were contacted. Interviews were coded using the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Usability testing was conducted using a think-aloud protocol. Data were collected until saturation was reached.
Results
Twenty-one patients (average age 51, SD 13 years) and 15 clinicians (average age 41, SD 11 years) completed the interview. Eight patients (average age 51, SD 13 years) completed the usability testing. All participants liked the device and thought it was easy to use. They also had a good understanding of how to use the device and the device’s purpose. Patients’ age and device use–related characteristics (eg, the warmth of hands and hand steadiness) were identified by users as factors negatively impacting the accurate use of the pulse oximeter.
Conclusions
Patients and clinicians had very positive perceptions of the pulse oximeter for COVID-19 remote monitoring, indicating high acceptability and usability of the device. However, factors that may impact the accuracy of the device should be considered when delivering interventions using the pulse oximeter for remote monitoring. Targeted instructions about the use of the device may be necessary for specific populations (eg, older people and patients unfamiliar with technology). Further research should focus on the integration of the pulse oximeter data into electronic medical records for real-time and secure patient monitoring.