Trial of Remote Continuous vs Intermittent Vital Signs Monitoring after Major Surgery
University of Leeds
Duration of Study in the UK
0 years, 11 months, 27 days
Patients having major surgery are at high risk of complications. Identifying complications early makes them easier to treat and improves the results for the patient.
One of the ways patients are monitored for complications is by charting their vital signs: blood pressure, pulse, breathing rate and temperature. A nurse will usually check these signs every four hours in the first few days after surgery. The vital signs form a score, the National Early Warning Score (NEWS), which can detect if the patient becomes unwell. One of the problems with NEWS is that patients can deteriorate in the intervals between monitoring, which can delay vital treatment.
One solution to this problem is continuous monitoring. A wireless patch is worn on the patient’s chest to monitor heart rate, breathing rate and temperature continuously. This could help detect unwell patients earlier.
In order to test this theory, a study will be done comparing a continuous monitoring system with NEWS monitoring. The research methods will be tested in a small study first, called a feasibility study. The main aim is to provide information about how best to undertake a larger study to fully test the new monitoring system.
All patients admitted to two participating wards following elective major surgery will be invited to take part.
Patients who consent will be divided at random to receive standard NEWS monitoring or both the continuous monitoring and NEWS for the duration of their hospital stay.
Information will be collected about the patients’ stay and how patients and nurses feel about the new system. Information will be collected regarding the number of patients who consent, those who do not and their reasons.
Distribution of results
The results will be communicated through journal articles, press releases and presentations to charities, hospitals and the media.
Yorkshire & The Humber - Leeds West Research Ethics Committee
Date of REC Opinion
28 Jul 2017
Further Information Favourable Opinion