RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Innovations in healthcare technologies have the potential to address challenges, including the monitoring of fluid balance. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate the functionality and accuracy of a digital technology compared to standard manual documentation in a real-life setting. METHODS: The digital technology, LICENSE, was designed to calculate fluid balance using data collected from devices measuring urine, oral and intravenous fluids. Participating patients were connected to the LICENSE system, which transmitted data wirelessly to a database. These data were compared to the nursing staff's manual measurements documented in the electronic patient record according to their usual practice. RESULTS: We included 55 patients in the Urology Department needing fluid balance charting and observed them for an average of 22.9 hours. We found a mean difference of -44.2 ml in total fluid balance between the two methods. Differences ranged from -2230 ml to 2695 ml, with a divergence exceeding 500 ml in 57.4% of cases. The primary source of error was inaccurate or omitted manual documentation. However, errors were also identified in the oral LICENSE device. CONCLUSIONS: When used correctly, the LICENSE system performs satisfactorily in measuring urine and intravenous fluids, although the oral device requires revision due to identified errors.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Precise fluid balance monitoring is essential for patient treatment, as incorrect fluid balance can lead to disorders. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the accuracy of the digital technology LICENSE (LIquid balanCE moNitoring SystEm) for fluid balance charting and compare it to the standard method (SM) to determine its usability in clinical practice. METHODS: This prospective study included 20 patients. The results from LICENSE were compared to those from SM and a reference measurement (manual weight of fluids, RM). Three LICENSE devices were used for urine output, intravenous fluids, and oral fluid intake. The accuracy of methods was evaluated using Bland Altman plots. RESULTS: The mean difference between LICENSE and RM was less than 2 millilitres (p= 0.031 and p= 0.047), whereas the mean difference between SM and RM was 6.6 ml and 10.8 ml (p< 0.0001). The range between the upper and lower limits of agreement was between 16.4 and 27.8 ml for LICENSE measurements and 25.2 and 52 ml for SM. CONCLUSION: LICENSE is comparable to or more accurate than the standard method for fluid balance monitoring. The use of LICENSE may improve the accuracy of fluid balance measurements. Further research is needed to evaluate its feasibility in daily clinical practice.