New publication finds SurePulse device could deliver a significant advancement in newborn monitoring

A new peer-reviewed clinical evaluation from research at Manchester University and Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust has been published in Frontiers in Paediatrics. The research evaluated the acceptability of the innovative SurePulse VS wireless heart rate monitor across the neonatal journey. This study offers a comprehensive look into how our technology performs in late preterm and full-term babies in real-world settings, providing invaluable insights from healthcare professionals and parents alike.


The SurePulse VS is an innovative solution aimed at improving the monitoring of vital signs in newborns. Traditional methods of heart rate monitoring can be invasive and disruptive, often interfering with the crucial early moments of parent-infant bonding. SurePulse VS addresses these challenges with a wireless, non-invasive approach, delivering both accuracy, reliability and convenience across several clinical settings.

Study Methods

Data was collected from healthcare professionals (HCPs) and parents and the SurePulse VS recorded heart rate and clinical intervention information. This generated qualitative and quantitative metrics on device performance and feedback on user and parental experiences.


The study was conducted over seven months and included 101 infants, with a broad range of gestational ages (34–39 weeks) and birth weights (1.8–3.5 kg). The device was used in various clinical settings, with 51% of deployments occurring at delivery and 47% within the neonatal unit.

Key findings include:

Overall feedback from HCPs and parents showed significant support for the device indicating that wireless monitoring would be beneficial in a variety of clinical settings.

Ease of use: Most of the staff (77%) reported that the Cap was easy or very easy to fit, and most parents thought that the Cap was comfortable for their baby, including 74% of those who had skin-to-skin time with their babies with a similar proportion positively endorsing the wireless monitoring approach.

Heart rate measurement: The median time from device deployment to heart rate signal acquisition was 20 seconds, with an interquartile range of 15 to 76 seconds. The device provides accurate and reliable heart rate information that is continuous and visible to the whole of the delivery / NICU team in a ‘clinically acceptable’ timeframe. 80% of staff noted that the heart rate signal was available all or most of the time.

Parental Feedback: Parents reported that the device was reassuring, convenient, and beneficial, highlighting the emotional and practical advantages of using SurePulse VS.


The study concludes that ‘The SurePulse device has potential to be a significant advancement in the way neonatal patients are monitored in a variety of post-delivery circumstances.’ The study demonstrates that the SurePulse VS offers accurate and timely heart rate monitoring and enhances the experience for both healthcare providers and parents. The device’s ability to function effectively in a range of post-delivery environments makes it a versatile tool in neonatal care.

Looking Forward

The success of the SurePulse VS device in this study paves the way for broader adoption in clinical practice. As we continue to innovate and refine our technology, we remain committed to deliver better outcomes for babies from birth to home. We are excited about the potential of the SurePulse VS device to make a meaningful impact on the health and well-being of newborns and their families.

For more detailed information about the study and its findings, please refer to our abstract summary or the published research paper. Thank you to all the healthcare professionals and parents who participated in this study and contributed to the advancement of neonatal care.


Peterson, J., Jennings, C. and Mahaveer, A. (2024) ‘A clinical evaluation and acceptability study of the innovative SurePulse vs wireless heart rate monitor across the neonatal journey’, Frontiers in Pediatrics, 12. doi:10.3389/fped.2024.1355777.




Scroll to Top