Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

ABSTRACT Objectives Late recognition of physiological deterioration is a frequent problem in hospital wards. We assessed whether ambulatory (wearable) physiological monitoring combined with a system that continuously merges physiological variables into a single “risk” score (VSI), changed care and outcome in patients after major surgery. Design Pre- and post-interventional study. Setting A single centre tertiary referral university hospital upper-gastrointestinal service. Participants Patients who underwent major upper-gastrointestinal surgery. Interventions Phase-I (pre-intervention phase): Patients received continuous wearable monitoring and standard care, but the VSI score was not available for clinical use. Phase-II (post-intervention phase): Patients received continuous wearable monitoring. In addition to standard care the VSI score was displayed for use in clinical practice. Measurements and Main Results 200 participants were monitored in phase-I. 207 participants were monitored in phase-II. Participants were monitored (median, interquartile range, IQR) for 30.2% (13.8-49.2) of available time in phase-I and 58.2% (33.1-75.2) of available time in phase-II. Clinical staff recorded observations more frequently in the 36 hours prior to a major adverse event (death, cardiac arrest or unplanned admission to intensive care) for phase-II participants (median, IQR, time between observations of 1.00, 0.50-2.08 hours) than phase-I participants (1.50, 0.75-2.50 hours, p <0.001). There was no difference in observation frequency between the two phases for participants who did not undergo an adverse event ( p =0.129). 6/200 participants died before hospital discharge in phase-I, 1/207 participants died in hospital in phase-II. 20 (10.0%) patients in phase-I and 26 (12.6%) patients in phase-II had an unplanned admission to intensive care. Ward length-of-stay was unaltered (8.91, 6.71-14.02 days in phase-I, vs. 8.97, 5.99-13.85 days in phase-II, p =0.327). Conclusion The combination of the integrated monitoring system with ambulatory monitoring in high-risk post-surgical patients improved recognition and management of deteriorating patients without increasing the observation rate in those patients who did not deteriorate.

Original publication




Journal article

Publication Date