Process Evaluation of a Wireless Wearable Continuous Vital Signs Monitoring Intervention in 2 General Hospital Wards: Mixed Methods Study

Background: Continuous monitoring of vital signs (CMVS) using wearable wireless sensors is increasingly available to patients in general wards and can improve outcomes and reduce nurse workload. To assess the potential impact of such systems, successful implementation is important. We developed a CMVS intervention and implementation strategy and evaluated its success in 2 general wards. Objective: We aimed to assess and compare intervention fidelity in 2 wards (internal medicine and general surgery) of a large teaching hospital. Methods: A mixed methods sequential explanatory design was used. After thorough training and preparation, CMVS was implemented—in parallel with the standard intermittent manual measurements—and executed for 6 months in each ward. Heart rate and respiratory rate were measured using a chest-worn wearable sensor, and vital sign trends were visualized on a digital platform. Trends were routinely assessed and reported each nursing shift without automated alarms. The primary outcome was intervention fidelity, defined as the proportion of written reports and related nurse activities in case of deviating trends comparing early (months 1-2), mid- (months 3-4), and late (months 5-6) implementation periods. Explanatory interviews with nurses were conducted. Results: The implementation strategy was executed as planned. A total of 358 patients were included, resulting in 45,113 monitored hours during 6142 nurse shifts. In total, 10.3% (37/358) of the sensors were replaced prematurely because of technical failure. Mean intervention fidelity was 70.7% (SD 20.4%) and higher in the surgical ward (73.6%, SD 18.1% vs 64.1%, SD 23.7%; P<.001). Fidelity decreased over the implementation period in the internal medicine ward (76%, 57%, and 48% at early, mid-, and late implementation, respectively; P<.001) but not significantly in the surgical ward (76% at early implementation vs 74% at midimplementation [P=.56] vs 70.7% at late implementation [P=.07]). No nursing activities were needed based on vital sign trends for 68.7% (246/358) of the patients. In 174 reports of 31.3% (112/358) of the patients, observed deviating trends led to 101 additional bedside assessments of patients and 73 consultations by physicians. The main themes that emerged during interviews (n=21) included the relative priority of CMVS in nurse work, the importance of nursing assessment, the relatively limited perceived benefits for patient care, and experienced mediocre usability of the technology. Conclusions: We successfully implemented a system for CMVS at scale in 2 hospital wards, but our results show that intervention fidelity decreased over time, more in the internal medicine ward than in the surgical ward. This decrease appeared to depend on multiple ward-specific factors. Nurses’ perceptions regarding the value and benefits of the intervention varied. Implications for optimal implementation of CMVS include engaging nurses early, seamless integration into electronic health records, and sophisticated decision support tools for vital sign trend interpretation.