Detection of physiological deterioration by the SNAP40 wearable device compared to standard monitoring devices in the emergency department: the SNAP40-ED study

Matthew J Reed, Megan McGrath, Polly L Black, Steff Lewis, Christopher McCann, Stewart Whiting, Rachel O'Brien, Alison Grant, Beth Harrison, Laura Skyrme, Miranda Odam, Matthew J Reed, Megan McGrath, Polly L Black, Steff Lewis, Christopher McCann, Stewart Whiting, Rachel O'Brien, Alison Grant, Beth Harrison, Laura Skyrme, Miranda Odam

Abstract

Background: In recent years, there has been increasing focus on the earlier detection of deterioration in the clinical condition of hospital patients with the aim of instigating earlier treatment to reverse this deterioration and prevent adverse outcomes. This is especially important in the ED, a dynamic environment with large volumes of undifferentiated patients, which carries inherent patient risk. SNAP40 is an innovative medical-grade device that can be worn on the upper arm that continuously monitors patients' vital signs including relative changes in systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, heart rate, movement, blood oxygen saturation and temperature. It uses automated risk analysis to potentially allow clinical staff to easily and quickly identify high-risk patients. The aim of this study is to investigate whether the SNAP40 device is able to identify deterioration in the vital sign physiology of an ED patient earlier than current standard monitoring and observation charting techniques.

Methods/design: Single centre, teaching hospital ED open label, prospective, observational cohort study recruiting 250 high acuity participants aged 16 years or over presenting to the ED. Participants will be approached and enrolled in the ED and after consent will have the SNAP40 wearable monitoring device attached which will be used alongside standard care monitoring. Participants will be observed throughout their time in the ED. Any SNAP40 device alarm, standard monitoring alarms or standard practice vital sign observations indicating a deterioration in a patient's vital sign physiology (defined as an increase in NEWS score) will be recorded. Primary outcome is time to detection of deterioration. Secondary outcomes include staff time spent performing observations and responding to standard monitoring alarms, clinical escalation of care when deterioration is detected and participants and staff rating of experience of both SNAP40 and current monitoring.

Discussion: The SNAP40-ED study aims to recruit 250 patients. It will be the first study to compare the ability of a novel ambulatory monitoring device to detect deterioration compared to standard care in the ED. It may allow the earlier detection of deterioration in the clinical condition of ED patients and therefore earlier treatment to reverse this deterioration and prevent adverse outcomes.

Trial registration: NCT03179267 ClinicalTrials.gov. Registered on June 17, 2017.

Keywords: Ambulatory monitoring; Clinical deterioration; Monitoring, physiological; Patient monitoring.

Conflict of interest statement

A favourable ethical opinion was obtained from Scotland A Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 17/SS/0028) on 6/4/2017. Written consent was obtained from all participants.Not applicableSW and CM are employed by and shareholders of snap40 Ltd. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Berlot G, Pangher A, Petrucci L, et al. Anticipating events of in-hospital cardiac arrest. Eur J Emerg Med. 2004;11:24–28. doi: 10.1097/00063110-200402000-00005.
    1. Kause J, Smith G, Prytherch D, et al. A comparison of antecedents to cardiac arrests, deaths and emergency intensive care admissions in Australia and New Zealand, and the United Kingdom—the ACADEMIA study. Resuscitation. 2004;62(3):275–282. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2004.05.016.
    1. Findlay GP, Shotton H, Kelly K et al. Time to intervene? NCEPOD 2012; . Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
    1. Chen J, Rinaldo B, Arthus F. The relationship between early emergency team calls and serious adverse events. Crit Care Med. 2009;37(1):148–153. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e3181928ce3.
    1. Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman. Time to act: severe sepsis: rapid diagnosis and treatment saves lives. London: Parliamentary and Health Services Ombudsman; 2013. . Accessed 29 Aug 2016
    1. College of Emergency Medicine. CEM clinical audits 2011–2012: severe sepsis and septic shock. London: College of Emergency Medicine; 2012. . Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
    1. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine. Essential facts regarding A&E services 2015; . Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
    1. Churpek M, Yuen T, Huber M, et al. Predicting cardiac arrests on the wards: a nested case-control study. Chest. 2012;141(5):1170–1176. doi: 10.1378/chest.11-1301.
    1. Griffiths JR, Kidney EM. Current use of early warning scores in UK emergency departments. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(1):65–66. doi: 10.1136/emermed-2011-200508.
    1. The Royal College of Emergency Medicine. Position statement National Early Warning Score (NEWS) for adult patients attending emergency departments 2016; . Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
    1. Mitchell I, McKay H, Van Leuvan C, et al. A prospective controlled trial of the effect of a multi-faceted intervention on early recognition and intervention in deteriorating hospital patients. Resuscitation. 2010;81(6):658–666. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.03.001.
    1. Hillman K, Chen J, Creitkos M, et al. Introduction of the medical emergency team (MET) system: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2005;365(9477):2091–2097. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66733-5.
    1. NHS National Patient Safety Agency. Recognising and responding appropriately to early signs of deterioration in hospitalised patients. London: NHS National Patient Safety Agency; 2007. . Accessed 29 Aug 2016.
    1. Goldhill D, White S, Summar A. Physiological values and procedures in the 24h before ICU admission from the ward. Anaesthesia. 1999;54:529–534. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00837.x.
    1. Ahmed A, Thongprayoon C, Schenck L, et al. Adverse in-hospital events are associated with increased in-hospital mortality and length of stay in patients with or at risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2015;90(3):321–328. doi: 10.1016/j.mayocp.2014.12.015.
    1. NHS Five Year Forward View 2014. . Accessed 16 July 2018.

Source: PubMed

3
Suscribir