PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the appropriate use of arrhythmia, ischemia, and QTc interval monitoring in the acute care setting. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography (PULSE) trial, a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of implementing electrocardiographic monitoring practice standards. Research nurses reviewed medical records for indications for monitoring and observed if arrhythmia, ischemia, and QT interval monitoring was being done on 1816 patients in 17 hospitals. RESULTS: Almost all (99%) patients with an indication for arrhythmia monitoring were being monitored, but 85% of patients with no indication were monitored. Of patients with an indication for ischemia monitoring, 35% were being monitored; but 26% with no indication were being monitored for ST-segment changes. Only 21% of patients with an indication for QT interval monitoring had a QTc documented, but 18% of patients with no indication had a QTc documented. CONCLUSION: Our data show evidence of inappropriate monitoring: undermonitoring for ischemia and QTc prolongation and overmonitoring for all 3 types of monitoring, especially arrhythmia monitoring.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the appropriate use of arrhythmia, ischemia, and QTc interval monitoring in the acute care setting. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography (PULSE) trial, a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of implementing electrocardiographic monitoring practice standards. Research nurses reviewed medical records for indications for monitoring and observed if arrhythmia, ischemia, and QT interval monitoring was being done on 1816 patients in 17 hospitals. RESULTS: Almost all (99%) patients with an indication for arrhythmia monitoring were being monitored, but 85% of patients with no indication were monitored. Of patients with an indication for ischemia monitoring, 35% were being monitored; but 26% with no indication were being monitored for ST-segment changes. Only 21% of patients with an indication for QT interval monitoring had a QTc documented, but 18% of patients with no indication had a QTc documented. CONCLUSION: Our data show evidence of inappropriate monitoring: undermonitoring for ischemia and QTc prolongation and overmonitoring for all 3 types of monitoring, especially arrhythmia monitoring.
Authors: C A Estrada; H S Rosman; N K Prasad; G Battilana; M Alexander; A C Held; M J Young Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2000-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: L Durairaj; B Reilly; K Das; C Smith; C Acob; S Husain; M Saquib; P Ganschow; A Evans; R McNutt Journal: Am J Med Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.965
Authors: Barbara J Drew; Michael J Ackerman; Marjorie Funk; W Brian Gibler; Paul Kligfield; Venu Menon; George J Philippides; Dan M Roden; Wojciech Zareba Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Barbara J Drew; Robert M Califf; Marjorie Funk; Elizabeth S Kaufman; Mitchell W Krucoff; Michael M Laks; Peter W Macfarlane; Claire Sommargren; Steven Swiryn; George F Van Hare Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-10-26 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Adam Snider; Marco Papaleo; Stuart Beldner; Chong Park; Dennis Katechis; David Galinkin; Alan Fein Journal: Chest Date: 2002-08 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Pentti M Rautaharju; Zhu-ming Zhang; Richard E Gregg; Wesley K Haisty; Mara Z Vitolins; Anne B Curtis; James Warren; Milan B Horaĉek; Sophia H Zhou; Elsayed Z Soliman Journal: J Electrocardiol Date: 2013-07-01 Impact factor: 1.438
Authors: Michele M Pelter; Denise L Loranger; Teri M Kozik; Anita Kedia; Richard P Ganchan; Deborah Ganchan; Xiao Hu; Mary G Carey Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2016 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 2.083