Dataset Information

Monitor-Watcher Use, Nurses' Knowledge of Electrocardiographic Monitoring, and Arrhythmia Detection.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Electrocardiographic telemetry monitors are ubiquitous in hospitals. Dedicated monitor watchers, either on the unit or in a centralized location, are often responsible for observing telemetry monitors and responding to their alarms. The impact of use of monitor watchers is not known.

Objectives

To evaluate the association of monitor-watcher use with (1) nurses' knowledge of electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring and (2) accuracy of arrhythmia detection.

Methods

Baseline data from 37 non-intensive care unit cardiac patient care areas in 17 hospitals in the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography trial were analyzed. Nurses' knowledge (n = 1136 nurses) was measured using a validated, 20-item online test. Accuracy of arrhythmia detection (n = 1189 patients) was assessed for 5 consecutive days by comparing arrhythmias stored in the monitor with nurses' documentation. Multiple regression was used to evaluate the association of use of monitor watchers with scores on the ECG-monitoring knowledge test. The association of monitor-watcher use with accuracy of arrhythmia detection was examined by χ2 analysis.

Results

Of the 37 units, 13 (35%) had monitor watchers. Use of monitor watchers was not independently associated with ECG-monitoring knowledge (P = .08). The presence of monitor watchers also was not significantly associated with the accuracy of arrhythmia detection (P = .94).

Conclusion

Although the use of monitor watchers was not associated with diminished nurses' knowledge of ECG monitoring, it also was not associated with more accurate arrhythmia detection. If implementing a monitor-watcher program, critical safety points, such as ensuring closed-loop communication, must be considered.

SUBMITTER: Funk M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8246648 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceArrhythmias are an important cause of maternal morbidity and mortality but remain difficult to diagnose.ObjectiveTo compare implantable loop recorder (ILR) plus 24-hour Holter electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring with standard 24-hour Holter ECG monitoring alone in terms of acceptability, ability to identify significant arrythmias, and effect on management and pregnancy outcome in women who were symptomatic or at high risk of arrythmia because of underlying structural heart disease.Design, setting, and participantsThis single-center, prospective randomized clinical trial recruited 40 consecutive patients from the Cardiac Disease and Maternity Clinic at Groote Schuur Hospital in Cape Town, South Africa. Pregnant patients with symptoms of arrhythmia and/or structural heart disease at risk of arrhythmia were included.InterventionPatients were randomized to standard care (SC; 24-hour Holter ECG monitoring [n = 20]) or standard care plus ILR (SC-ILR; 24-hour Holter ECG monitoring plus ILR [n = 20]). Only 17 consented to ILR insertion, and the 3 who declined ILR were allocated to the SC group.Main outcomes and measuresArrhythmias considered included atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, premature ventricular complexes, supraventricular tachycardia, ventricular tachycardia, or ventricular fibrillation.ResultsAmong the 40 women in this trial, the mean (SD) age was 28.4 (5.5) years. Holter monitoring detected arrhythmias in 3 of 23 patients (13%) in the SC group and 4 of 17 patients (24%) in the SC-ILR group compared with 9 of 17 patients (53%) patients who had arrhythmias detected by ILR. Seven patients (4 with supraventricular tachycardia, 1 with premature ventricular complexes, and 2 with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation recorded by ILR) did not have arrhythmias detected by 24-hour Holter monitoring. Three of these 7 patients (43%) had a change in management as a result of their ILR recordings. There were no maternal deaths. However, the SC group had a significantly lower mean (SD) gestational stage at delivery (35 [5] weeks vs 38 [2], P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceThe ILR was better than 24-hour Holter monitoring in detecting arrhythmias, which led to a change in management for a significant proportion of patients. Our findings suggest that ILR may be beneficial for pregnant women at risk of arrhythmia.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02249195.

Project description:Background Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common tachyarrhythmia and associated with a risk of stroke. The detection and diagnosis of AF represent a major clinical challenge due to AF’s asymptomatic and intermittent nature. Novel consumer-grade mobile health (mHealth) products with automatic arrhythmia detection could be an option for long-term electrocardiogram (ECG)-based rhythm monitoring and AF detection. Objective We evaluated the feasibility and accuracy of a wearable automated mHealth arrhythmia monitoring system, including a consumer-grade, single-lead heart rate belt ECG device (heart belt), a mobile phone application, and a cloud service with an artificial intelligence (AI) arrhythmia detection algorithm for AF detection. The specific aim of this proof-of-concept study was to test the feasibility of the entire sequence of operations from ECG recording to AI arrhythmia analysis and ultimately to final AF detection. Methods Patients (n=159) with an AF (n=73) or sinus rhythm (n=86) were recruited from the emergency department. A single-lead heart belt ECG was recorded for 24 hours. Simultaneously registered 3-lead ECGs (Holter) served as the gold standard for the final rhythm diagnostics and as a reference device in a user experience survey with patients over 65 years of age (high-risk group). Results The heart belt provided a high-quality ECG recording for visual interpretation resulting in 100% accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of AF detection. The accuracy of AF detection with the automatic AI arrhythmia detection from the heart belt ECG recording was also high (97.5%), and the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 95.4%, respectively. The correlation between the automatic estimated AF burden and the true AF burden from Holter recording was >0.99 with a mean burden error of 0.05 (SD 0.26) hours. The heart belt demonstrated good user experience and did not significantly interfere with the patient’s daily activities. The patients preferred the heart belt over Holter ECG for rhythm monitoring (85/110, 77% heart belt vs 77/109, 71% Holter, P=.049). Conclusions A consumer-grade, single-lead ECG heart belt provided good-quality ECG for rhythm diagnosis. The mHealth arrhythmia monitoring system, consisting of heart-belt ECG, a mobile phone application, and an automated AF detection achieved AF detection with high accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. In addition, the mHealth arrhythmia monitoring system showed good user experience. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03507335; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03507335