Abstract
Respiratory rate is an important early sign of clinical deterioration but the current practice of counting breaths manually is time-consuming and prone to error. We aimed to determine the concordance between manual respiratory rate measurements and automated measurements recorded using a wearable device. We undertook a prospective observational study on three general respiratory wards to compare manual respiratory rate measurements collected during usual clinical care with automated readings from a wearable respiratory rate monitor (RespiraSense, PMD Solutions, Cork, Ireland). Thirty-one patients took part in the study. Manual respiratory rate readings displayed large peaks at 20 and 24 breaths/min, whereas automated readings followed a smooth bell-shaped distribution. Manual and automated respiratory rates were both higher during the day than at night, and this was more marked for automated readings. Automated readings were on average 2.5 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2 to 2.8) breaths/minute higher than time-matched manual readings, and the 95% limits of agreement were - 7.9 (95% CI -8.4 to -7.4) and 12.9 (95% CI 12.3 to 13.4) breaths/minute, wider than the clinically acceptable limits of ± 3 breaths/min. Trends in manual and automated respiratory rates were concordant in only 56% of cases. Automated respiratory rate measurements using RespiraSense do not display clinically acceptable agreement with manual measurements in the setting of a respiratory ward.