Continuous Ward Monitoring on Med-Surg: Closing the Gaps in Patient Safety

We’ve worked with many hospitals and clinical teams, and one challenge always comes up: how to keep patients safe on medical-surgical wards in the long hours between vital checks.

Most wards still rely on spot checks every four to six hours. For stable patients, this works fine. But for someone recovering from surgery, taking opioids, or flagged for sepsis, those gaps can be risky. Studies show that adding continuous pulse oximetry reduced both rescue events and transfers to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) compared to routine checks (Taenzer et al., 2010) [1].

Continuous ward monitoring is designed to close those gaps. It gives staff earlier warnings, helps prevent emergencies, and improves the experience for both patients and nurses.

Continue reading to see how hospitals are using it, what results they see, and how TEKTELIC supports this change.

The risks between checks

The biggest risks often happen in the hours between routine assessments. A patient may look fine when vitals are taken. But in the next few hours, breathing can slow from opioids, heart rate can climb with sepsis, or oxygen levels can quietly drop.

The PRODIGY trial showed that almost half (46%) of at-risk patients had opioid-related breathing problems, often overnight and without clear warning signs (Khanna et al., 2020) [4]. Without continuous monitoring, many of these events go unnoticed until they require urgent intervention or an ICU transfer.

For nurses, it means carrying the heavy burden of watching many patients with limited time. For hospitals, it means higher ICU demand, longer stays, and more costs.

What continuous ward monitoring is

Continuous monitoring doesn’t mean every patient is hooked up to bulky ICU machines. Instead, small wearables—such as a chest strap or an arm band—track vitals around the clock and send them wirelessly to a central dashboard.

Staff can see heart rate, breathing rate, oxygen levels (SpO₂), and temperature in real time. If something changes, an alert can go straight to the right nurse. This gives teams time to act earlier, often before a patient reaches crisis point.

Recent studies confirm this approach works. Continuous and wireless monitoring on general wards improved detection of deterioration and reduced serious outcomes (Rowland et al., 2024; Leenen et al., 2024) [2], [3].

Why it’s now possible

Hospitals have wanted this for years, but older systems were too complex and expensive to install. Telemetry was designed for ICUs, not general wards.

Now, purpose-built wireless networks make it possible. With only a few access points, hospitals can cover entire wards and even multiple floors. Devices last days on a single charge. IT teams don’t need to rewire beds or overload Wi-Fi.

The result? Patients can be monitored anywhere on the ward, without disrupting hospital infrastructure.

Where hospitals start

Hospitals usually begin with patients who are at highest risk:

• Post-op patients on opioids, where breathing problems often appear at night.
• Patients being monitored for sepsis or bleeding, where small changes in vitals can be an early warning.
• “Step-down” patients moving out of intensive care but still needing close checks.

By starting with these groups, hospitals can show early results—better safety, fewer ICU transfers—and build confidence to expand across wards.

The impact on staff and patients

For nurses, continuous monitoring means fewer repetitive tasks. Spot checks can be reduced, vitals flow automatically into dashboards, and alerts are sent to the right staff member. This saves time and cuts delays, letting nurses focus more on direct care.

For patients, it means better sleep, freedom to move around the ward, and peace of mind knowing their condition is being tracked at all times. Families also feel more confident, knowing their loved ones are under continuous watch.

When both staff and patients see the benefits, adoption is much smoother.

Measuring results

Hospital leaders want proof. The most reliable measures include:

• Fewer rescue events and ICU transfers (Taenzer et al., 2010) [1]
• Fewer code blue events (Rowland et al., 2024) [2]
• Shorter average stays and fewer 30-day readmissions (Ghabowen et al., 2024) [8]
• Less nursing time spent on routine checks (Leenen et al., 2024) [3]

Financial models show that hospitals often save millions over time, with a return on investment (ROI) achieved within months (Slight et al., 2014; Beard et al., 2023) [6], [7].

The business case

Every avoided ICU transfer saves thousands. Even reducing stays by half a day creates more bed capacity. Fewer readmissions lower costs and improve performance scores.

Continuous monitoring is unusual in healthcare—it improves outcomes and pays for itself. One review showed its ROI to be both credible and repeatable across different hospitals (Slight et al., 2014) [6].

But more than the numbers, it protects patients and gives staff the tools to respond before it’s too late.

Challenges to solve

Of course, there are hurdles. Alarm fatigue can be a problem if alerts aren’t tuned (Curry & Jungquist, 2014) [9]. If the data doesn’t flow into the systems nurses already use, it risks being ignored. And staff training is essential to make sure the technology is used well.

Hospitals that succeed usually:

• Start with a small pilot.
• Involve nurses early and adjust alarm thresholds.
• Integrate data into existing dashboards.
• Track and share results.

When done this way, both patients and staff find the approach practical and helpful (BMJ Open Feasibility Study Team, 2018) [10].

TEKTELIC’s role

At TEKTELIC, we designed the eDoctor (chest strap) and eBeat (upper-arm band) for exactly this purpose. Both devices track heart rate, breathing, SpO₂, and temperature continuously, sending the data securely over LoRaWAN®. They last days on a charge and connect easily with hospital systems.

Key benefits our solutions deliver:

• Detect problems earlier, especially in high-risk groups.
• Reduce ICU transfers with faster intervention.
• Save nursing time by cutting manual checks.
• Improve patient comfort with mobility and better rest.
• Deliver measurable ROI by lowering costs and optimizing beds.

Final thoughts & next steps

The risks of relying only on routine checks are clear. The tools to close those gaps now exist. Hospitals that have adopted continuous ward monitoring report fewer emergencies, more efficient staff, and real cost savings.

The choice is no longer whether to use continuous monitoring, but when to make it part of standard care.

If your hospital is considering continuous ward monitoring, contact TEKTELIC to see how our eDoctor and eBeat solutions can help improve patient safety, reduce costs, and support your care teams.

References

1. Taenzer AH, Pyke JB, McGrath SP, Blike GT. Impact of pulse oximetry surveillance on rescue events and ICU transfers. 2010;112(2):282–287.
2. Rowland BA, et al. Impact of continuous and wireless monitoring of vital signs on outcomes in the general ward. British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2024.
3. Leenen JPL, et al. Wearable wireless continuous vital sign monitoring on the general ward: State of the art. Current Opinion in Critical Care. 2024.
4. Khanna AK, et al. Prediction of opioid-induced respiratory depression on inpatient wards (PRODIGY). Anesthesia & Analgesia. 2020.
5. Khanna AK, et al. Continuous pulse oximetry ± capnography for prevention of postoperative respiratory failure and adverse outcomes: review. Critical Care Medicine. 2024.
6. Slight SP, et al. Return on investment of continuous monitoring in medical–surgical units. Critical Care Medicine. 2014.
7. Beard JW, et al. Cost savings through continuous vital sign monitoring in hospital wards: a modeling study. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice. 2023.
8. Ghabowen IK, et al. Financial cost of adult 30-day hospital readmissions: systematic review and meta-analysis. Risk Management and Healthcare Policy. 2024.
9. Curry JP, Jungquist CR. A critical assessment of monitoring practices, patient deterioration, and alarm fatigue on inpatient wards: a review. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology. 2014.
10. BMJ Open Feasibility Study Team. Feasibility and acceptability of continuous monitoring in surgical wards. BMJ Open. 2018.