Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Formative Research

Date Submitted: Dec 1, 2022
Date Accepted: Dec 12, 2023

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

Contactless Monitoring System Versus Gold Standard for Respiratory Rate Monitoring in Emergency Department Patients: Pilot Comparison Study

Goldfine CE, Oshim MFT, Chapman BP, Ganesan D, Rahman T, Carreiro SP

Contactless Monitoring System Versus Gold Standard for Respiratory Rate Monitoring in Emergency Department Patients: Pilot Comparison Study

JMIR Form Res 2024;8:e44717

DOI: 10.2196/44717

PMID: 38363588

PMCID: 10907933

Comparison of a Contactless Monitoring System versus Gold Standard for Respiratory Rate Monitoring in Emergency Department Patients: a pilot study

  • Charlotte E. Goldfine; 
  • Md. Farhan Tasnim Oshim; 
  • Brittany P. Chapman; 
  • Deepak Ganesan; 
  • Tauhidur Rahman; 
  • Stephanie P. Carreiro

ABSTRACT

Background:

Respiratory rate is a crucial indicator of disease severity yet is the most neglected vital sign. Subtle changes in respiratory rate may be the first sign of clinical deterioration. Current methods of respiratory rate monitoring are labor intensive and sensitive to motion artifact, which often leads to inaccurate readings or underreporting. The P440 radar module is a contactless sensor that uses radar to detect respiratory rate and may be a useful alternative for clinical settings.

Objective:

This goal of this study was to 1) compare the P440 radar module to gold standard manual respiratory rate monitoring and standard of care telemetry respiratory rate counting and 2) compare P440 radar to gold standard respiratory rate in subgroups based on sex and disease state.

Methods:

This was a pilot study of adults 18 years of age or older being monitored in the Emergency Department. Participants were monitored with the P440 radar module for 2 hours and had gold standard (manual) and standard of care (telemetry) respiratory rates recorded at 15-minute intervals during that time. Respiratory rates between the P440, gold standard, and standard telemetry were compared using Bland-Altman plots and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC).

Results:

Fourteen participants were enrolled in the study. The P440 and gold standard Bland-Altman analysis showed a bias of -0.76 (-11.16-9.65) and an ICC of 0.38 (95% CI 0.06-0.60). The P440 and gold standard had the best agreement at normal physiologic respiratory rates. There was no change in agreement between the P440 and gold standard when grouped by admitting diagnosis or sex.

Conclusions:

Although the P440 did not have statistically significant agreement with gold standard respiratory rate monitoring, it did show a trend of increased agreement in the normal physiologic range, overestimating at low respiratory rates, and underestimating at high respiratory rates. This trend is important for adjusting future models to be able to accurately detect respiratory rates. Once validated, the contactless respiratory monitor provides a unique solution to monitoring patients in a variety of settings.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Goldfine CE, Oshim MFT, Chapman BP, Ganesan D, Rahman T, Carreiro SP

Contactless Monitoring System Versus Gold Standard for Respiratory Rate Monitoring in Emergency Department Patients: Pilot Comparison Study

JMIR Form Res 2024;8:e44717

DOI: 10.2196/44717

PMID: 38363588

PMCID: 10907933

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.