Workload associated with manual assessment of vital signs as compared with continuous wireless monitoring
Main finding · Time used for monitoring of vital signsResult — go to the resultMedian difference 9.9 min per patient per day 95% CI 5.6–21Authors' conclusion
The 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.
Study context
- Population
- Patients admitted to the general hospital ward
- Participants
- 20 patients
- Exposure
- Continuous wireless monitoring vs manual National Early Warning Score (NEWS) assessment of vital signs
- Outcome
- Workload: time for monitoring of vital signs (min per patient per day)
- Follow-up
- 24-h period
Main finding
Time used for monitoring of vital signs
Median difference
9.9 min per patient per day
95% CI 5.6–21
P < 0.001
By group
NEWS vs Continuous monitoring
Median difference 9.9 min per patient per day (95% CI 5.6–21); P < 0.001
As reported in the abstract
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
Time used for monitoring in isolated patients (subgroup)
Original publication
Workload associated with manual assessment of vital signs as compared with continuous wireless monitoring. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. Published 21 September 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →