Priscilla K Gazarian1. 1. School of Nursing and Health Sciences, Simmons College, 300 The Fenway, Boston, MA 02115, United States. Electronic address: priscilla.gazarian@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An important role of the registered nurse is to identify patient deterioration by monitoring the patient condition and vital signs. Increasingly, this is supplemented with continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Continuous monitoring is inefficient in identifying deterioration because of the high number of false and nuisance alarms. Lack of strong evidence or formal guidelines for the care of patients receiving ECG monitoring has led clinicians to rely too heavily on this technology without consideration of its limitations. The nursing workload associated with alarm management remains unexamined. OBJECTIVE: To describe nurses' routine practices related to continuous ECG monitoring, frequency and types of alarms, their associated nursing interventions, and the impact on the patient's plan of care. METHODS: Design. Prospective, descriptive, observational study. Setting and participants. Between January 2011 and March 2011 we observed nine Registered Nurses providing care for patients receiving continuous ECG monitoring in non-critical care areas. The PI and two research assistants observed each nurse for two 3-h observation periods and recorded data on a researcher designed observation tool. At the end of each observation period, the observers printed the alarm events as recorded by the central monitoring computer. RESULTS: Nurses responded to 46.8% of all alarms. During the observation period, there were no dysrhythmia adverse events. One patient had a change in condition requiring transfer to a higher level of care. A range of nursing interventions occurred in response to alarms. CONCLUSION: Nurses routine practices related to monitoring continue to reveal gaps in practice related to alarm management. Observations of practice also revealed the difficulties and complexities of managing alarm systems and the range of nursing interventions associated with managing alarms.
BACKGROUND: An important role of the registered nurse is to identify patient deterioration by monitoring the patient condition and vital signs. Increasingly, this is supplemented with continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring. Continuous monitoring is inefficient in identifying deterioration because of the high number of false and nuisance alarms. Lack of strong evidence or formal guidelines for the care of patients receiving ECG monitoring has led clinicians to rely too heavily on this technology without consideration of its limitations. The nursing workload associated with alarm management remains unexamined. OBJECTIVE: To describe nurses' routine practices related to continuous ECG monitoring, frequency and types of alarms, their associated nursing interventions, and the impact on the patient's plan of care. METHODS: Design. Prospective, descriptive, observational study. Setting and participants. Between January 2011 and March 2011 we observed nine Registered Nurses providing care for patients receiving continuous ECG monitoring in non-critical care areas. The PI and two research assistants observed each nurse for two 3-h observation periods and recorded data on a researcher designed observation tool. At the end of each observation period, the observers printed the alarm events as recorded by the central monitoring computer. RESULTS: Nurses responded to 46.8% of all alarms. During the observation period, there were no dysrhythmia adverse events. One patient had a change in condition requiring transfer to a higher level of care. A range of nursing interventions occurred in response to alarms. CONCLUSION: Nurses routine practices related to monitoring continue to reveal gaps in practice related to alarm management. Observations of practice also revealed the difficulties and complexities of managing alarm systems and the range of nursing interventions associated with managing alarms.
Authors: Christopher P Bonafide; Richard Lin; Miriam Zander; Christian Sarkis Graham; Christine W Paine; Whitney Rock; Andrew Rich; Kathryn E Roberts; Margaret Fortino; Vinay M Nadkarni; A Russell Localio; Ron Keren Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Lujie Chen; Artur Dubrawski; Donghan Wang; Madalina Fiterau; Mathieu Guillame-Bert; Eliezer Bose; Ata M Kaynar; David J Wallace; Jane Guttendorf; Gilles Clermont; Michael R Pinsky; Marilyn Hravnak Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2016-07 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Christine Weirich Paine; Veena V Goel; Elizabeth Ely; Christopher D Stave; Shannon Stemler; Miriam Zander; Christopher P Bonafide Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-12-14 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Azizeh Khaled Sowan; Tiffany Michelle Gomez; Albert Fajardo Tarriela; Charles Calhoun Reed; Bruce Michael Paper Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2016-01-11
Authors: Michael McGillion; Carley Ouellette; Amber Good; Marissa Bird; Shaunattonie Henry; Wendy Clyne; Andrew Turner; Paul Ritvo; Sarah Ritvo; Nazari Dvirnik; Andre Lamy; Richard Whitlock; Christopher Lawton; Jake Walsh; Ken Paterson; Janine Duquette; Karla Sanchez Medeiros; Fadi Elias; Ted Scott; Joseph Mills; Deborah Harrington; Mark Field; Prathiba Harsha; Stephen Yang; Elizabeth Peter; Sanjeev Bhavnani; P J Devereaux Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-03-18 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Azizeh K Sowan; Nancy Staggers; Andrea Berndt; Tommye Austin; Charles C Reed; Ashwin Malshe; Max Kilger; Elma Fonseca; Ana Vera; Qian Chen Journal: JMIR Nurs Date: 2021-02-03