Family Perspectives on Continuous Monitor Use in a Children’s Hospital: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVES Alarms from continuous cardiorespiratory and pulse oximetry monitors may contribute to parental anxiety and poor sleep during hospitalization, yet families also may find monitoring reassuring. Our objective was to understand how families perceive the utility, benefits, and harms of continuous monitoring. METHODS In this single-center qualitative study, we used semistructured interviews and direct observation. We enrolled families of patients of a variety of ages and clinical diagnoses. We extracted patient demographic information (age, diagnosis) from the health record. Semistructured interviews were recorded and transcribed. Detailed field notes were taken during observations. We used an inductive thematic approach to develop and refine codes that informed the development of themes. RESULTS We recruited 24 families and conducted 23 interviews and 9 observation sessions. Respiratory conditions (eg, bronchiolitis, asthma) were the most common reason for hospitalization. The hospitalized children covered a range of ages: <4 weeks (16%), 4 weeks to 6 months (20%), 7 months to 5 years (44%), and >5 years (20%); 55% had previously been hospitalized. Families expressed varying degrees of understanding the utility of monitors and often conducted their own assessments before notifying staff about alarms. Families expected monitoring, including negative effects like sleep disruption, as part of hospitalization. Families perceived the benefit of monitoring in context of previous hospital experiences, often seeing less benefit and worrying less about alarms in subsequent hospitalizations. CONCLUSIONS Family members continue to find reassurance from cardiorespiratory monitoring despite evidence that it offers limited benefit outside of the ICU setting. Parental perspectives should be addressed in future deimplementation efforts.