Use and Outcomes of Telemetry Monitoring on a Medicine Service

Archives of internal medicine (Impact Factor: 17.33). 08/2012; 172(17):1-2. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3163
Source: PubMed
12 Reads
  • World Congress of Cardiology Scientific Sessions; 05/2012
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The American Heart Association classifies monitored patients into 3 categories. The aims of this study were to (1) investigate how patients are assigned according to the American Heart Association classification, (2) determine the number and type of arrhythmic events experienced by these patients, and (3) describe subsequent changes in management. A prospective observational study design was used. All patients assigned to telemetry during a 3-month period were consecutively enrolled in our study. Data were collected 24/7. Only arrhythmias that might require a change in management were recorded. Monitor watchers at the central monitoring station completed a standard data sheet assessing 64 variables. These data, as well as medical records, were reviewed by the investigator. Overall, 1,194 patients were included. Eighteen percent of the patients were assigned to American Heart Association class I (monitoring indicated), 71% to class II (monitoring may be of benefit), and 11% to class III (monitoring not indicated). The overall arrhythmia event rate was 33%. Forty-three percent of class I patients, 28% of class II patients, and 47% of class III patients experienced arrhythmia events. Change in management occurred in 25% of class I patients, 14% of class II patients, and 29% of class III patients. Although the number of class III indications should have been reduced, nearly 1/2 of class III patients experienced arrhythmia events and 1/3 of them received management changes. This outcome challenges existing guidelines. In conclusion, most patients in this study were monitored appropriately, according to class I and II indications.
    The American journal of cardiology 07/2013; 112(8). DOI:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.05.069 · 3.28 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background:In-hospital telemetry monitoring is important for diagnosis and treatment of patients at risk of developing life-threatening arrhythmias. It is widely used in critical and non-critical care wards. Nurses are responsible for correct electrode placement, thus ensuring optimal quality of the monitoring. The aims of this study were to determine whether a complex educational intervention improves (a) optimal electrode placement, (b) hygiene, and (c) delivery of critical information to patients (reason for monitoring, limitations in cellular phone use, and not to leave the ward without informing a member of staff).Methods:A prospective interventional study design was used, with data collection occurring over two six-week periods: before implementation of the intervention (n=201) and after the intervention (n=165). Standard abstraction forms were used to obtain data on patients' clinical characteristics, and 10 variables related to electrode placement and attachment, hygiene and delivery of critical information.Results:At pre-intervention registration, 26% of the electrodes were misplaced. Twelve per cent of the patients received information about limiting their cellular phone use while monitored, 70% were informed of the purpose of monitoring, and 71% used a protective cover for their unit. Post-intervention, outcome measures for the three variables improved significantly: use of protective cover (p<0.001), information about the purpose of monitoring (p=0.005) and information about limitations in cellular phone use (p=0.003). Nonetheless, 23% of the electrodes were still misplaced.Conclusion:The study highlights the need for better, continued education for in-hospital telemetry monitoring in coronary care units, and other units that monitor patients with telemetry.
    European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 12/2013; 13(6). DOI:10.1177/1474515113515585 · 1.88 Impact Factor
Show more