Wearability testing of ambulatory vital sign monitoring devices: a prospective observational cohort study. (Preprint)
Areia C., Young L., Vollam S., Ede J., Santos M., Tarassenko L., Watkinson P.
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> <p>Timely recognition of the deteriorating patient remains challenging. Ambulatory monitoring systems (AMS) may provide support to current monitoring practices; however they need to be thoroughly tested before implementation in the clinical environment.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> <p>The objective of this study is to assess the wearability of a selection of commercially available AMS to inform a future prospective study of ambulatory vital signs monitors in an acute hospital ward.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> <p>Five pulse oximeters (4 with finger probe and 1 wrist worn only) and 2 chest patches were selected to be part of this study; participants wore each device up to 72 hours and completed one wearability questionnaire per device.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> <p>Quantitative scores and feedback were collected in 70 completed questionnaires from 20 healthy volunteers, with each device tested approximately 10 times. For the Comfort Rating Scale (CRS), the Wavelet Health device seemed to be the superior pulse oximeter (p < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the chest patches in the CRS total score; however the VitalPatch was superior in the Attachment section (p = 0.043). General pain and discomfort scores and total percentage of time worn are also reflective of these.</p> </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> <p>Our results suggest that participants prefer to wear wrist-worn pulse oximeters without a probe compressing the fingertip and the smaller chest patch. A compromise between wearability, reliability and accuracy should be made for successful and practical integration of AMS in the hospital environment.</p> </sec>