Accuracy of Patient-Collected Vital Signs

Abstract

Introduction: Telehealth has emerged as an important clinical setting for managing acute respiratory tract infections (ARIs), potentially reducing emergency department and urgent care overcrowding, and reducing nosocomial transmission. Many current algorithms for ARI management incorporate information on patient vital signs. However, the accuracy of vital signs collected by patients using readily available home devices and techniques has not been studied. Methods: A cross-sectional sample of patients seen for urgent conditions at a hospital emergency and urgent care center were given instructions and low-cost, readily available devices to collect their vital signs. A trained research coordinator collected a parallel set of vital signs using standard hospital equipment, serving as the gold standard. We analyzed the performance of patient-collected vital signs compared with vital signs collected by a trained research coordinator. Results: A total of 300 patients completed the study. Patient-collected vital signs were highly specific for traditional levels of abnormalities (HR >100 beats per min, RR >24 breaths per min, temperature >100.4 degrees Fahrenheit, oxygen saturation <94 percent); however, sensitivity was poor for elevated heart rate by pulse estimation (25%) and elevated respiratory rate (60%). Heart rate and oxygen saturation by pulse oximeter and oral temperature had higher sensitivity. Conclusions: Vital signs measured and provided by patients are not uniformly accurate, particularly when using manual techniques rather than automated devices. Telehealth algorithms that rely on these values could provide incorrect triage and management advice.

Keywords: cross-sectional studies; emergency services; telemedicine; vital signs.