Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 11;9(5):e27165.
doi: 10.2196/27165.

The Use of Head-Worn Displays for Vital Sign Monitoring in Critical and Acute Care: Systematic Review

Francine Elrose  1 , Andrew Hill  1   2   3 , David Liu  4 , Isaac Salisbury  1 , Thien LeCong  5   6 , Robert G Loeb  1   7 , Penelope Sanderson  1   4   8
Affiliations

The Use of Head-Worn Displays for Vital Sign Monitoring in Critical and Acute Care: Systematic Review

Francine Elrose et al. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. .

Abstract

Background: Continuous monitoring of patient vital signs may improve patient outcomes. Head-worn displays (HWDs) can provide hands-free access to continuous vital sign information of patients in critical and acute care contexts and thus may reduce instances of unrecognized patient deterioration.

Objective: The purpose of the study is to conduct a systematic review of the literature to evaluate clinical, surrogate, and process outcomes when clinicians use HWDs for continuous patient vital sign monitoring.

Methods: The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019119875) and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines. A literature search was conducted for articles published between January 1995 and June 2020 using the following databases: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. Overall, 2 reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and then assessed the full text of the articles. Original research articles that evaluated the clinical, surrogate, or process outcomes of head-mounted displays for continuous vital sign monitoring in critical care or acute care contexts were included.

Results: Of the 214 records obtained, 15 (7%) articles met the predefined criteria and were included in this review. Of the 15 studies, 7 (47%) took place in a clinical context, whereas the remainder took place in a simulation environment. In 100% (7/7) of the studies that evaluated gaze behavior, changes were found in gaze direction with HWDs. Change detection improvements were found in 67% (2/3) of the studies evaluating changes in the participants' ability to detect changes in vital signs. Of the 10 studies assessing the ease of use of the HWD, most participants of 7 (70%) studies reported that the HWD was easy to use. In all 6 studies in which participants were asked if they would consider using the HWD in their practice, most participants responded positively, but they often suggested improvements on the HWD hardware or display design. Of the 7 studies conducted in clinical contexts, none reported any clinical outcomes.

Conclusions: Although there is limited and sometimes conflicting evidence about the benefits of HWDs from certain surrogate and process outcomes, evidence for clinical outcomes is lacking. Recommendations are to employ user-centered design when developing HWDs, perform longitudinal studies, and seek clinical outcomes.

Trial registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019119875; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=119875.

Keywords: clinical setting; head-mounted display; head-worn display; healthcare; medical setting; patient monitoring; wearable; wearable device.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) study flowchart.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brown H, Terrence J, Vasquez P, Bates DW, Zimlichman E. Continuous monitoring in an inpatient medical-surgical unit: a controlled clinical trial. Am J Med. 2014 Mar;127(3):226–32. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2013.12.004. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cardoso LT, Grion CM, Matsuo T, Anami EH, Kauss IA, Seko L, Bonametti AM. Impact of delayed admission to intensive care units on mortality of critically ill patients: a cohort study. Crit Care. 2011;15(1):R28. doi: 10.1186/cc9975. https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/cc9975 - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Subbe CP, Duller B, Bellomo R. Effect of an automated notification system for deteriorating ward patients on clinical outcomes. Crit Care. 2017 Mar 14;21(1):52. doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1635-z. https://ccforum.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13054-017-1635-z - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ridley S. The recognition and early management of critical illness. Ann R Coll Surg Engl. 2005 Sep;87(5):315–22. doi: 10.1308/003588405X60669. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/16176687 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Abenstein JP, Narr BJ. An ounce of prevention may equate to a pound of cure: can early detection and intervention prevent adverse events? Anesthesiology. 2010 Feb;112(2):272–3. doi: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3181ca858d. https://pubs.asahq.org/anesthesiology/article-lookup/doi/10.1097/ALN.0b0... - DOI - DOI - PubMed

Publication types