{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03909952606635071, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009478672985781991, 'mean_word_length': 5.2592592592592595, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Artifactual pulse oximeter trace

Artifactual pulse oximetry traces have been implicated as the cause of numerous critical incidents and ‘near misses’ [1]. We recently observed an artefactual trace (Fig. 1) resulting from the accidental attachment of a pulse oximeter probe (Datex-Ohmeda TruSat, GE Healthcare, Chalfont St. Giles, UK) to the connecting hoses of a lower limb pneumatic compression device (Flowtron Universal system, ArjoHuntleigh Healthcare Ltd, Luton, UK) (Fig. 2). We postulate that the pulse oximeter probe interprets the 50-60 Hz inflation/deflation cycle of the Flowtron system as a pulsatile ‘patient’ signal, but would be delighted to receive correspondence that may explain the unusually high oxygen saturation level recorded, when it is more normal for motion artifact to result in values below the true saturation [2].