Subscribe to RSS

DOI: 10.1055/a-2604-8329
Parents and Health Care Providers' Perspectives on Vital Signs Monitoring Technologies in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: An International Survey
Funding None.

Abstract
Objective
This study aimed to assess the views of parents and neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) health care providers (HCPs) on current wired vital signs monitoring and future wireless alternatives.
Study Design
Prospective cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and July 2023, targeting three groups: (1) NICU parents, (2) physicians, and (3) nurses and respiratory therapists (RT) and physiotherapists (PT). A 17-question survey was developed to assess several perspectives with current vital signs monitoring and a possible wireless monitoring system. NICU parents completed paper surveys and HCPs participated via an anonymous electronic survey. The original English survey was tailored for different respondent groups, translated into French, Spanish, and Portuguese, and distributed through neonatal research networks. Responses from each group were analyzed as totals (%), with within-group comparisons assessed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Additionally, between-group comparisons were conducted using the chi-square test of independence or Fisher's exact test, as appropriate.
Results
A total of 1,141 responses were included (25 parents, 438 physicians, and 678 nurses, RTs, and PTs). Only 52% of parents were satisfied with current wired systems; 68% reported wires hindered infant handling, and 52% cited interference with skin-to-skin care. Both physicians and HCPs expressed low satisfaction with the current system. Common concerns included tangling, skin irritation, and workload. Support for wireless technology introduction was high across all groups (parents = 60%, physicians = 91%, and nurses, RTs, and PTs = 87%), with main perceived benefits including improved kangaroo mother care (KMC), reduced patient discomfort, and enhanced bonding. All groups expressed accuracy, safety, battery life, and cost concerns of a possible wireless system.
Conclusion
Parents and HCPs are generally dissatisfied with the current NICU vital signs monitoring systems, primarily due to concerns with wires and cables and interference with KMC. Wireless technologies were mostly supported, but data on reliability, safety, and economic feasibility will be critical for development and successful implementation.
Key Points
-
Parents and HCPs dislike wired systems due to tangling, skin irritation, and interference with care.
-
Support for wireless monitoring was viewed positively by parents and very positively by HCP.
-
Wireless systems were seen as beneficial for KC, reducing patient discomfort, and improving bonding.
-
However, each group expressed concerns about a potential future wireless monitoring system.
-
Accuracy, battery life, radiation, and cost must be addressed before wireless systems can be adopted.
Publication History
Received: 19 February 2025
Accepted: 03 April 2025
Article published online:
29 May 2025
© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)
Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA
-
References
- 1 Fallah S, Chen XK, Lefebvre D, Kurji J, Hader J, Leeb K. Babies admitted to NICU/ICU: province of birth and mode of delivery matter. Healthc Q 2011; 14 (02) 16-20
- 2 Kumar N, Akangire G, Sullivan B, Fairchild K, Sampath V. Continuous vital sign analysis for predicting and preventing neonatal diseases in the twenty-first century: big data to the forefront. Pediatr Res 2020; 87 (02) 210-220
- 3 Bonner O, Beardsall K, Crilly N, Lasenby J. ‘There were more wires than him’: the potential for wireless patient monitoring in neonatal intensive care. BMJ Innov 2017; 3 (01) 12-18
- 4 Johnston CC, Stevens B, Pinelli J. et al. Kangaroo care is effective in diminishing pain response in preterm neonates. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2003; 157 (11) 1084-1088
- 5 Charpak N, Ruiz-Peláez JG, Figueroa de C Z, Charpak Y. Kangaroo mother versus traditional care for newborn infants ≤ 2000 grams: a randomized, controlled trial. Pediatrics 1997; 100 (04) 682-688
- 6 Patel NZ, Patel DV, Phatak AG, Patel VG, Nimbalkar SM. Reducing false alarms and alarm fatigue from pulse oximeters in a neonatal care unit: a quality improvement study. J Nematol 2022; 36 (02) 135-142
- 7 Russotto V, Cortegiani A, Raineri SM, Giarratano A. Bacterial contamination of inanimate surfaces and equipment in the intensive care unit. J Intensive Care 2015; 3: 54
- 8 Chen W, Nguyen ST, Coops R, Oetomo SB, Feijs L. Wireless transmission design for health monitoring at neonatal intensive care units. In: 2009 2nd International Symposium on Applied Sciences in Biomedical and Communication Technologies. IEEE; 2009: 1-6
- 9 Xu S, Rwei AY, Vwalika B. et al. Wireless skin sensors for physiological monitoring of infants in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet Digit Health 2021; 3 (04) e266-e273
- 10 Senechal E, Jeanne E, Tao L, Kearney R, Shalish W, Sant'Anna G. Wireless monitoring devices in hospitalized children: a scoping review. Eur J Pediatr 2023; 182 (05) 1991-2003
- 11 Chung HU, Rwei AY, Hourlier-Fargette A. et al. Skin-interfaced biosensors for advanced wireless physiological monitoring in neonatal and pediatric intensive-care units. Nat Med 2020; 26 (03) 418-429
- 12 Chung HU, Kim BH, Lee JY. et al. Binodal, wireless epidermal electronic systems with in-sensor analytics for neonatal intensive care. Science 2019; 363 (6430) eaau0780
- 13 Scholten AWJ, van Leuteren RW, de Waal CG, de Jongh FH, van Kaam AH, Hutten GJ. Feasibility of wireless cardiorespiratory monitoring with dry electrodes incorporated in a belt in preterm infants. Physiol Meas 2022 43. (05):
- 14 Scholten AWJ, Zhan Z, Niemarkt HJ. et al. Cardiorespiratory monitoring with a wireless and nonadhesive belt measuring diaphragm activity in preterm and term infants: a multicenter non-inferiority study. Pediatr Pulmonol 2023; 58 (12) 3574-3581
- 15 Senechal E, Radeschi D, Tao L. et al. The use of wireless sensors in the neonatal intensive care unit: a study protocol. PeerJ 2023; 11: e15578
- 16 Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet e-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res 2004; 6 (03) e34
- 17 Lyndon A, Jacobson CH, Fagan KM, Wisner K, Franck LS. Parents' perspectives on safety in neonatal intensive care: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 (11) 902-909
- 18 Adama EA, Adua E, Bayes S, Mörelius E. Support needs of parents in neonatal intensive care unit: an integrative review. J Clin Nurs 2022; 31 (5–6): 532-547
- 19 Lantz B, Ottosson C. Parental interaction with infants treated with medical technology. Scand J Caring Sci 2013; 27 (03) 597-607
- 20 Cleveland LM. Parenting in the neonatal intensive care unit. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2008; 37 (06) 666-691
- 21 Pepper D, Rempel G, Austin W, Ceci C, Hendson L. More than information: a qualitative study of parents' perspectives on neonatal intensive care at the extremes of prematurity. Adv Neonatal Care 2012; 12 (05) 303-309
- 22 Roller CG. Getting to know you: mothers' experiences of kangaroo care. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs 2005; 34 (02) 210-217
- 23 Russell G, Sawyer A, Rabe H. et al; “Very Preterm Birth Qualitative Collaborative Group”. Parents' views on care of their very premature babies in neonatal intensive care units: a qualitative study. BMC Pediatr 2014; 14 (01) 230
- 24 Ginsburg AS, Kinshella MW, Naanyu V. et al. Multiparameter continuous physiological monitoring technologies in neonates among health care providers and caregivers at a private tertiary hospital in Nairobi, Kenya: feasibility, usability, and acceptability study. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23 (10) e29755
- 25 Peterson J, Jennings C, Mahaveer A. A clinical evaluation and acceptability study of the innovative SurePulse vs wireless heart rate monitor across the neonatal journey. Front Pediatr 2024; 12: 1355777
- 26 Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Fact Sheet - NCI. May 4, 2024. Accessed February 17, 2025 at: https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/cell-phones-fact-sheet
- 27 Poncette AS, Spies C, Mosch L. et al. Clinical requirements of future patient monitoring in the intensive care unit: qualitative study. JMIR Med Inform 2019; 7 (02) e13064
- 28 Poncette AS, Mosch L, Spies C. et al. Improvements in patient monitoring in the intensive care unit: survey study. J Med Internet Res 2020; 22 (06) e19091
- 29 Wikström AC, Cederborg AC, Johanson M. The meaning of technology in an intensive care unit–an interview study. Intensive Crit Care Nurs 2007; 23 (04) 187-195
- 30 Batey N, Henry C, Garg S. et al; European Society for Paediatric Research (ESPR) Neonatal Resuscitation Section Writing Group. The newborn delivery room of tomorrow: emerging and future technologies. Pediatr Res 2024; 96 (03) 586-594
- 31 Mishra S, Khouqeer GA, Aamna B. et al. A review: recent advancements in sensor technology for non-invasive neonatal health monitoring. Biosens Bioelectron X 2023; 14: 100332
- 32 Krbec BA, Zhang X, Chityat I. et al. Emerging innovations in neonatal monitoring: a comprehensive review of progress and potential for non-contact technologies. Front Pediatr 2024; 12: 1442753
- 33 George DR, Rovniak LS, Kraschnewski JL. Dangers and opportunities for social media in medicine. Clin Obstet Gynecol 2013; 56 (03) 453-462
- 34 Grajales III FJ, Sheps S, Ho K, Novak-Lauscher H, Eysenbach G. Social media: a review and tutorial of applications in medicine and health care. J Med Internet Res 2014; 16 (02) e13