Association Between Off-site Central Monitoring Using Standardized Cardiac Telemetry and Clinical Outcomes Among Non–Critically Ill Patients

Indication‐specific event rates among hospitalized patients undergoing continuous cardiac monitoring

“…Previously published standardized telemetry monitoring indications were systemically captured for noncritically ill hospitalized patients at the Cleveland Clinic using required electronic order entry over a 13‐month period (4 March 2014 to 4 April 2015), as listed in Table . Emergency response team (ERT) activations were systematically and simultaneously collected as an endpoint for clinical deterioration, and were adjudicated into cardiac and noncardiac groups with additional substratification of arrhythmia‐specific events.…”

“…Cardiac telemetry monitoring is widely utilized for a variety of clinical indications, yet indication‐specific event rates for monitored patients are seldomly reported . The 2017 update to American Heart Association guidelines call for additional research while endorsing standardized hospital‐based monitoring practices .…”

“…The 2017 update to American Heart Association guidelines call for additional research while endorsing standardized hospital‐based monitoring practices . Standardized cardiac telemetry monitoring, in accordance with practice guidelines, has been associated with decreased utilization, cost savings, and improved clinical outcomes . Removing low‐risk patients may mitigate alarm fatigue by reducing the volume of inactionable alarms .…”

“…This aligns with patient safety goals set forth by the Joint Comission . The present analysis therefore examined indication‐specific adjudicated event rates during a previously reported 13‐month period of applying standardized telemetry monitoring indications with an electronic order linked to offsite central monitoring …”

2017 ISHNE-HRS expert consensus statement on ambulatory ECG and external cardiac monitoring/telemetry

“…Dedicating "watchers" for continuous rhythm monitoring has been previously associated with an improvement in the fidelity of true rhythm recognition events in prior studies, including reduction in sustained ventricular tachycardia events-presumably owing to earlier interventions for nonsustained events (Cantillon et al, 2016;Funk et al, 1997;Stukshis et al, 1997). However, the feasibility of continuous human monitoring of multiple screens is questionable and costly, pulling nurses away from direct patient care and education (Drew et al, 2004).…”