We read with great interest the article by (McGrath et al. 2026) and colleagues examining, whether supplemental oxygen use compromises the ability of pulse oximetry based continuous monitoring systems to detect clinically significant deterioration in general care units. This large longitudinal study addresses longstanding concerns in nursing and patient safety practice and provides reassuring evidence grounded in real-world surveillance data. A major strength of this study is the scale and maturity of the monitoring infrastructure. The analysis spans more than 6 years and over 70,000 general care unit admissions within a well-established surveillance environment, allowing the authors to evaluate rare but clinically meaningful outcomes rather than surrogate physiological signals. By focusing on rescue activations, transfers to higher levels of care, emergent transfers and death after events, this study aligns deterioration detection with outcomes that matter most to nurses, patients and the healthcare system. The author's central finding that supplemental oxygen use did not results in delayed recognition of severe deterioration is particularly important, given the persistent concerns that oxygen therapy masks hypoventilation by maintaining normal oxygen saturation. Although, this physiological phenomenon is well described under controlled experimental conditions, the present study demonstrates that in routine clinical practice, it does not translate into missed catastrophic events when pulse oximetry is embedded within a broader surveillance framework (Gaonkar et al. 2024). The absence of unwitnessed or unmonitored cardiopulmonary arrest across the entire study period is especially notable and indicates the reliability of the implemented monitoring strategy. A detailed case review of emergent transfers further strengthens these conclusions. That 44 of 45 emergent cases were judged unlikely to have benefited from additional modalities such as capnography or telemetry underscores an often-overlooked point: Deterioration detection systems should be judged not by their sensitivity to minor physiological deviations but by their ability to trigger timely clinical responses for life-threatening events (McGrath et al. 2025). From a nursing perspective, this distinction is critical, as excessive sensitivity may increase alarm burden and cognitive load without improving patient outcomes. Several aspects merit further consideration. First, supplemental oxygen use in general care units is a marker of higher acuity and clinical complexity. Although, the authors adjusted for comorbidity and case mix indices, residual confounding by indication remains possible (Andrade 2024). The longer post-event length of stay observed among patients receiving higher levels of oxygen likely reflects the underlying illness severity rather than delayed recognition; However, this nuance is important when translating findings into practice guidelines. Second, the study's surveillance thresholds, particularly the use of sustained SpO2 ≤ 80%, are deliberately conservative and optimised for detecting severe deterioration rather than early respiratory compromise. Although appropriate for the stated aims, this approach differs from settings in which lower thresholds or different alarm strategies are used. Institutions that consider the adoption of similar systems should be cautious in extrapolating these findings to environments with different alarm configurations, staffing models or response protocols. Third, although the authors convincingly demonstrated that severe deterioration was not missed, the study did not directly address subtler forms of clinical decline, such as progressive hypercapnia accompanied by changes in mental status or respiratory effort. Nurses often rely on a combination of continuous monitoring, intermittent vital signs and bedside assessments to identify these patterns. Therefore, the findings reinforce rather than replace the central role of nursing judgement and situational awareness in patient surveillance. The implications of this study are substantial from a clinical nursing perspective. Continuous pulse oximetry remains one of the most accessible and widely implemented monitoring modalities in general care units. Evidence suggests that its use remains safe and effective even in patients receiving supplemental oxygen supports in current practice and may alleviate hesitancy among clinicians concerned about masking effects. Importantly, the study reframes the debate away from whether pulse oximetry detects every episode of hypoventilation and towards whether it enables timely recognition of events requiring urgent intervention. Future research could build on this work by examining how surveillance performance varies across different patient subgroups, such as those with obesity hypoventilation syndrome or opioid exposure, and by exploring how the integration of continuous monitoring data with the nursing workflow influences response times and clinical decision-making. Qualitative insights from nurses using these systems may also help identify contextual factors that contribute to successful deterioration recognition. In conclusion, McGrath et al. provided robust evidence that pulse oximetry–based continuous monitoring does not delay the detection of severe clinical deterioration in general care patients receiving supplemental oxygen. Their findings offer important reassurance to the nursing community and support the continued use of pulse oximetry as a cornerstone of patient surveillance, provided that it is embedded within a well-designed system that emphasises timely responses, appropriate alarm management and clinical judgement. M.S.R. conceptualised the commentary, drafted the manuscript, and serves as the corresponding author. K.J. contributed to clinical and nursing practice interpretation and manuscript review. S.M. contributed to nursing contextualization and manuscript editing. All authors reviewed, edited and approved the final version of the manuscript. The authors have nothing to report. Generative AI tools were used solely for language refinement and formatting assistance. All scientific interpretation, critique and conceptual analysis were independently developed by the authors. The authors have nothing to report. The authors have nothing to report. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analysed during the current study.
Minu et al. (Thu,) studied this question.