Wireless wearables for postoperative surveillance on surgical wards: a survey of 1158 anaesthesiologists in Western Europe and the USA.
anaesthesiology
failure to rescue
monitoring
patient safety
postoperative complications
surgery
wearables
Journal
BJA open
ISSN: 2772-6096
Titre abrégé: BJA Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9918419157906676
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2022
Mar 2022
Historique:
received:
14
12
2021
accepted:
12
01
2022
medline:
23
2
2022
pubmed:
23
2
2022
entrez:
17
8
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Several continuous monitoring solutions, including wireless wearable sensors, are available or being developed to improve patient surveillance on surgical wards. We designed a survey to understand the current perception and expectations of anaesthesiologists who, as perioperative physicians, are increasingly involved in postoperative care. The survey was shared in 40 university hospitals from Western Europe and the USA. From 5744 anaesthesiologists who received the survey link, there were 1158 valid questionnaires available for analysis. Current postoperative surveillance was mainly based on intermittent spot-checks of vital signs every 4-6 h in the USA (72%) and every 8-12 h in Europe (53%). A majority of respondents (91%) considered that continuous monitoring of vital signs should be available on surgical wards and that wireless sensors are preferable to tethered systems (86%). Most respondents indicated that oxygen saturation (93%), heart rate (80%), and blood pressure (71%) should be continuously monitored with wrist devices (71%) or skin adhesive patches (54%). They believed it may help detect clinical deterioration earlier (90%), decrease rescue interventions (59%), and decrease hospital mortality (54%). Opinions diverged regarding the impact on nurse workload (increase 46%, decrease 39%), and most respondents considered that the biggest implementation challenges are economic (79%) and connectivity issues (64%). Continuous monitoring of vital signs with wireless sensors is wanted by most anaesthesiologists from university hospitals in Western Europe and in the USA. They believe it may improve patient safety and outcome, but may also be challenging to implement because of cost and connectivity issues.
Sections du résumé
Background
UNASSIGNED
Several continuous monitoring solutions, including wireless wearable sensors, are available or being developed to improve patient surveillance on surgical wards. We designed a survey to understand the current perception and expectations of anaesthesiologists who, as perioperative physicians, are increasingly involved in postoperative care.
Methods
UNASSIGNED
The survey was shared in 40 university hospitals from Western Europe and the USA.
Results
UNASSIGNED
From 5744 anaesthesiologists who received the survey link, there were 1158 valid questionnaires available for analysis. Current postoperative surveillance was mainly based on intermittent spot-checks of vital signs every 4-6 h in the USA (72%) and every 8-12 h in Europe (53%). A majority of respondents (91%) considered that continuous monitoring of vital signs should be available on surgical wards and that wireless sensors are preferable to tethered systems (86%). Most respondents indicated that oxygen saturation (93%), heart rate (80%), and blood pressure (71%) should be continuously monitored with wrist devices (71%) or skin adhesive patches (54%). They believed it may help detect clinical deterioration earlier (90%), decrease rescue interventions (59%), and decrease hospital mortality (54%). Opinions diverged regarding the impact on nurse workload (increase 46%, decrease 39%), and most respondents considered that the biggest implementation challenges are economic (79%) and connectivity issues (64%).
Conclusion
UNASSIGNED
Continuous monitoring of vital signs with wireless sensors is wanted by most anaesthesiologists from university hospitals in Western Europe and in the USA. They believe it may improve patient safety and outcome, but may also be challenging to implement because of cost and connectivity issues.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37588692
doi: 10.1016/j.bjao.2022.100002
pii: S2772-6096(22)00001-6
pmc: PMC10430871
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
100002Investigateurs
Matthieu Biais
(M)
Vincent Bonhomme
(V)
Wolfgang Buhre
(W)
Bernard Cholley
(B)
Jean-Michel Constantin
(JM)
Emmanuel Futier
(E)
Samir Jaber
(S)
Marc Leone
(M)
Benedikt Preckel
(B)
Daniel Reuter
(D)
Patrick Schoettker
(P)
Thomas Scheeren
(T)
Michael Sander
(M)
Luzius A Steiner
(LA)
Sascha Treskatsch
(S)
Kai Zacharowski
(K)
Anoushka Afonso
(A)
Lovkesh Arora
(L)
Michael L Ault
(ML)
Karsten Bartels
(K)
Charles Brown
(C)
Daniel Brown
(D)
Douglas Colquhoun
(D)
Ryan Fink
(R)
Tong J Gan
(TJ)
Neil Hanson
(N)
Omar Hyder
(O)
Timothy Miller
(T)
Matt McEvoy
(M)
Ronald Pearl
(R)
Romain Pirracchio
(R)
Marc Popovich
(M)
Sree Satyapriya
(S)
B Scott Segal
(BS)
George Williams
(G)
Informations de copyright
© 2022 The Author(s).
Références
JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017 Jul 05;5(7):e91
pubmed: 28679490
BJA Educ. 2019 Jan;19(1):27-33
pubmed: 33456851
Anesthesiology. 2010 Feb;112(2):282-7
pubmed: 20098128
Br J Anaesth. 2021 Nov;127(5):675-677
pubmed: 34454711
Anesth Analg. 2019 Sep;129(3):726-734
pubmed: 31425213
J Patient Saf. 2021 Sep 1;17(6):e557-e561
pubmed: 28731933
Resuscitation. 2016 May;102:1-5
pubmed: 26898412
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Jul 1;119(1):31-39
pubmed: 28605474
Anesth Analg. 2017 Dec;125(6):2019-2029
pubmed: 29064874
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2018 May;35(5):325-333
pubmed: 29474347
Crit Care. 2017 Mar 14;21(1):52
pubmed: 28288655
Crit Care Med. 2016 Jul;44(7):e456-63
pubmed: 26992068
Br J Anaesth. 2016 Nov;117(5):601-609
pubmed: 27799174
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Aug 01;119(2):258-266
pubmed: 28854536
J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 17;22(6):e18636
pubmed: 32469323
Br J Anaesth. 2017 Jul 01;119(1):95-105
pubmed: 28974065
Br J Anaesth. 2018 Nov;121(5):999-1001
pubmed: 30336872
Crit Care Med. 2019 Oct;47(10):1283-1289
pubmed: 31343475
Crit Care Med. 2014 Aug;42(8):1862-8
pubmed: 24717454
Physiol Meas. 2019 Jul 03;40(6):06TR01
pubmed: 31051494
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Anesthesiology. 2019 Aug;131(2):426-437
pubmed: 30860985
Lancet. 2019 Feb 2;393(10170):401
pubmed: 30722955
Crit Care Clin. 2018 Apr;34(2):189-198
pubmed: 29482899
Anesth Analg. 2007 Aug;105(2):412-8
pubmed: 17646499
Ann Surg. 2023 Mar 1;277(3):375-380
pubmed: 34029230
Adv Ther. 2021 Jul;38(7):3745-3759
pubmed: 34031858
Anesth Analg. 2020 Oct;131(4):1012-1024
pubmed: 32925318
Br J Anaesth. 2019 May;122(5):575-586
pubmed: 30916008
Am J Med. 2014 Mar;127(3):226-32
pubmed: 24342543
Anesth Analg. 2015 Sep;121(3):709-715
pubmed: 26287299
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Mar;122(3):304-306
pubmed: 30770047
JMIR Perioper Med. 2020 Dec 4;3(2):e21705
pubmed: 33393923
J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Feb;36(1):81-86
pubmed: 34476669
Crit Care Med. 2016 Feb;44(2):368-74
pubmed: 26771782
Anesthesiology. 2019 Apr;130(4):550-559
pubmed: 30875354
J Clin Monit Comput. 2022 Apr;36(2):407-417
pubmed: 33575922
Br J Anaesth. 2012 May;108(5):723-6
pubmed: 22499744
J Clin Anesth. 2022 May;77:110639
pubmed: 34953279
Am J Nurs. 2021 Apr 1;121(4):40-46
pubmed: 33755624
Intensive Care Med. 2019 May;45(5):671-673
pubmed: 30259073
Br J Anaesth. 2020 Aug;125(2):113-115
pubmed: 32439073
Anesth Analg. 2015 May;120(5):1142-1148
pubmed: 25867643
Anesthesiology. 2018 Feb;128(2):317-327
pubmed: 29189290
Expert Rev Med Devices. 2019 Feb;16(2):145-154
pubmed: 30580650
J Clin Monit Comput. 2018 Oct;32(5):945-951
pubmed: 29214598
Anesthesiology. 2020 Mar;132(3):407-410
pubmed: 31929331
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Jul 1;204(1):44-52
pubmed: 33525997
Crit Care. 2019 May 30;23(1):194
pubmed: 31146792
Br J Anaesth. 2019 Sep;123(3):378-391
pubmed: 31331649
Br J Anaesth. 2021 Nov;127(5):760-768
pubmed: 34301400
Anesthesiology. 2020 Mar;132(3):424-439
pubmed: 31743149
Anesthesiology. 2021 Sep 1;135(3):531-540
pubmed: 34237129
JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Sep 1;178(9):1201-1208
pubmed: 30014139