Wearable Devices in Healthcare Beyond the One-Size-Fits All Paradigm

Highlights: Are wearable devices suitable for all clinical scenarios? Wearable devices are not interchangeable in clinical practice due to differences in sensor configuration, connectivity protocols, and validation contexts. Which is the main consequence of these findings? Context-driven selection may improve clinical utility, safety, and workflow efficiency. Which are the main issues that prevent the clinical integration? Interoperability and data integration are critical for successful clinical implementation. Ethical and privacy concerns must be addressed for safe and equitable deployment. Wearable devices (WDs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows to enable continuous, non-invasive vital signs monitoring. Combined with Artificial Intelligence (AI), these systems can shift clinical monitoring from being reactive to predictive, allowing for earlier detection of deterioration and more personalized interventions. The value of these technologies lies not in absolute measurements, but in detecting physiological parameters trends relative to each patient’s baseline. Such a trend-based approach enables real-time prediction of deterioration, enhancing patient safety and continuity of care. However, despite their shared multiparametric capabilities, WDs are not interchangeable. This narrative review analyzes nine clinically validated devices, Radius VSM® (Masimo Corporation, Irvine, CA, USA), BioButton® (BioIntelliSense Inc., Redwood City, CA, USA. Distributed by Medtronic), Portrait Mobile® (GE HealthCare, Chicago, IL, USA), VitalPatch® (VitalConnect Inc., San Jose, CA, USA), CardioWatch 287-2® (Corsano Health B.V., The Hague, The Netherlands. Distributed by Medtronic), Cosinuss C-Med Alpha® (Cosinuss Gmb, Munich, Germany), SensiumVitals® (Sensium Healthcare Limited, Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), Isansys Lifetouch® (Isansys Lifecare Ltd., Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK), and CheckPoint Cardio® (CheckPoint R&D LTD., Kazanlak, Bulgaria), highlighting how differences in sensor configurations, battery life, connectivity, and validation contexts influence their suitability across various clinical environments. Rather than establishing a hierarchy of technical superiority, this review emphasizes the importance of context-driven selection, considering care setting, patient profile, infrastructure requirements, and interoperability. Each device demonstrates strengths and limitations depending on patient population and operational demands, ranging from perioperative, post-operative, emergency, or post-Intensive Care Unit (ICU) settings. The findings support a tailored approach to WD implementation, where matching device capabilities to clinical needs is key to maximizing utility, safety, and efficiency.