Noa Segall1, Jeffrey A Joines, Ron'Nisha D Baldwin, Diane Bresch, Lauren G Coggins, Suzanne Janzen, Jill R Engel, Melanie C Wright. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology (N.S.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham; Textile Engineering, Chemistry, and Science (J.A.J.), North Carolina State University, Raleigh; Duke University Health System (R.D.B., J.R.E.); Duke Office of Clinical Research (D.B.), Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC; Rush University College of Nursing (L.G.C.), Chicago, IL; Saint Alphonsus Regional Medical Center (S.J.), Boise; and College of Pharmacy (M.C.W.), Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In many hospitals across the country, electrocardiograms of multiple at-risk patients are monitored remotely by telemetry monitor watchers in a central location. However, there is limited evidence regarding best practices for designing these cardiac monitoring systems to ensure prompt detection and response to life-threatening events. To identify factors that may affect monitoring efficiency, we simulated critical arrhythmias in inpatient units with different monitoring systems and compared their efficiency in communicating the arrhythmias to a first responder. METHODS: This was a multicenter cross-sectional in situ simulation study. Simulation participants were monitor watchers and first responders (usually nurses) in 2 inpatient units in each of 3 hospitals. Manipulated variables included: (1) number of communication nodes between monitor watchers and first responders; (2) central monitoring station location-on or off the patient care unit; (3) monitor watchers' workload; (4) nurses' workload; and (5) participants' experience. RESULTS: We performed 62 arrhythmia simulations to measure response times of monitor watchers and 128 arrhythmia simulations to measure response times in patient care units. We found that systems in which an intermediary between monitor watchers and nurses communicated critical events had faster response times to simulated arrhythmias than systems in which monitor watchers communicated directly with nurses. Responses were also faster in units colocated with central monitoring stations than in those located remotely. As the perceived workload of nurses increased, response latency also increased. Experience did not affect response times. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited in our ability to isolate the effects of these factors from extraneous factors on central monitoring system efficiency, our study provides a roadmap for using in situ arrhythmia simulations to assess and improve monitoring performance.
INTRODUCTION: In many hospitals across the country, electrocardiograms of multiple at-risk patients are monitored remotely by telemetry monitor watchers in a central location. However, there is limited evidence regarding best practices for designing these cardiac monitoring systems to ensure prompt detection and response to life-threatening events. To identify factors that may affect monitoring efficiency, we simulated critical arrhythmias in inpatient units with different monitoring systems and compared their efficiency in communicating the arrhythmias to a first responder. METHODS: This was a multicenter cross-sectional in situ simulation study. Simulation participants were monitor watchers and first responders (usually nurses) in 2 inpatient units in each of 3 hospitals. Manipulated variables included: (1) number of communication nodes between monitor watchers and first responders; (2) central monitoring station location-on or off the patient care unit; (3) monitor watchers' workload; (4) nurses' workload; and (5) participants' experience. RESULTS: We performed 62 arrhythmia simulations to measure response times of monitor watchers and 128 arrhythmia simulations to measure response times in patient care units. We found that systems in which an intermediary between monitor watchers and nurses communicated critical events had faster response times to simulated arrhythmias than systems in which monitor watchers communicated directly with nurses. Responses were also faster in units colocated with central monitoring stations than in those located remotely. As the perceived workload of nurses increased, response latency also increased. Experience did not affect response times. CONCLUSIONS: Although limited in our ability to isolate the effects of these factors from extraneous factors on central monitoring system efficiency, our study provides a roadmap for using in situ arrhythmia simulations to assess and improve monitoring performance.
Authors: Kimberly A Bonzheim; Rani I Gebara; Bridget M O'Hare; R Darin Ellis; Monique A Brand; Salil D Balar; Rita Stockman; Annette M Sciberras; David E Haines Journal: Telemed J E Health Date: 2011-04-02 Impact factor: 3.536
Authors: Noa Segall; Gene Hobbs; Christopher B Granger; Amanda E Anderson; Alberto S Bonifacio; Jeffrey M Taekman; Melanie C Wright Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Halley Ruppel; Marjorie Funk; J Tobey Clark; Izabella Gieras; Yadin David; Thomas J Bauld; Paul Coss; Margaret L Holland Journal: Am J Crit Care Date: 2018-03 Impact factor: 2.228
Authors: Kristin E Sandau; Marjorie Funk; Andrew Auerbach; Gregory W Barsness; Kay Blum; Maria Cvach; Rachel Lampert; Jeanine L May; George M McDaniel; Marco V Perez; Sue Sendelbach; Claire E Sommargren; Paul J Wang Journal: Circulation Date: 2017-10-03 Impact factor: 29.690