Reports From the Field

Attitudes Surrounding Continuous Telemetry Utilization by Providers at an Academic Tertiary Medical Center

Journal of Clinical Outcomes Management. 2016 March;23(3)

Author(s):

Amber E. Johnson

JAMES A. TURNER JR, MBA, MHA

Amy M. Knight, MD

Clare K. Mock, MD

Joyce M. Maygers, DNP, RN

Sammy Zakaria, MD, MPH

References

1. Day H. Preliminary studies of an acute coronary care area. J Lancet 1963;83:53–5.

2. Drew B, Califf R, Funk M, et al. Practice standards for electrocardiographic monitoring in hospital settings: an American Heart Association scientific statement from the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young: Endorsed by the International Society of Computerized Electrocardiology and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses. Circulation 2004;110:2721–46.

3. Estrada C, Battilana G, Alexander M, et al. Evaluation of guidelines for the use of telemetry in the non-intensive-care setting. J Gen Intern Med 2000;15:51–5.

4. Henriques-Forsythe M, Ivonye C, Jamched U, et al. Is telemetry overused? Is it as helpful as thought? Cleve Clin J Med 2009;76:368–72.

5. Chen E, Hollander, J. When do patients need admission to a telemetry bed? J Emerg Med 2007;33:53–60.

6. Najafi N, Auerbach A. Use and outcomes of telemetry monitoring on a medicine service. Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1349–50.

7. Cabana M, Rand C, Powe N, et al. Why don't physicians follow clinical practice guidelines?: A framework for improvement. JAMA 1999;282:1458–65.

8. Adult hospital medicine. Five things physicians and patients should question. 15 Aug 2013. Available at www.choosingwisely.org/doctor-patient-lists/society-of-hospital-medicine-adult-hospital-medicine/

9. Durairaj L, Reilly B, Das K, et al. Emergency department admissions to inpatient cardiac telemetry beds: A prospective cohort study of risk stratification and outcomes. Am J Med 2001;110:7–11.

10. Estrada C, Rosman H, Prasad N, et al. Role of telemetry monitoring in the non-intensive care unit. Am J Cardiol 1995;76:960–5.

11. Hollander J, Sites F, Pollack C, Shofer F. Lack of utility of telemetry monitoring for identification of cardiac death and life-threatening ventricular dysrhythmias in low-risk patients with chest pain. Ann Emerg Med 2004;43:71–6.

12. Ivonye C, Ohuabunwo C, Henriques-Forsythe M, et al. Evaluation of telemetry utilization, policy, and outcomes in an inner-city academic medical center. J Natl Med Assoc 2010;102:598–604.

13. Schull M, Redelmeier D. Continuous electrocardiographic monitoring and cardiac arrest outcomes in 8,932 telemetry ward patients. Acad Emerg Med 2000;7:647–52.

14. Sivaram C, Summers J, Ahmed N. Telemetry outside critical care units: patterns of utilization and influence on management decisions. Clin Cardiol 1998;21:503–5.

15. Snider A, Papaleo M, Beldner S, et al. Is telemetry monitoring necessary in low-risk suspected acute chest pain syndromes? Chest 2002;122:517–23.

16. Chen S, Zakaria S. Behind the monitor-The trouble with telemetry: a teachable moment. JAMA Intern Med 2015;175:894.

17. Dressler R, Dryer M, Coletti C, et al. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:1852–4.

18. Benjamin E, Klugman R, Luckmann R, et al. Impact of cardiac telemetry on patient safety and cost. Am J Manag Care 2013;19:e225–32.

19. Solomon D, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang M. Techniques to improve physicians use of diagnostic tests: A new conceptual framework. JAMA 1998;280:2020–7.

20. Richeson J, Johnson J. The association between interdisciplinary collaboration and patient outcomes in a medical intensive care unit. Heart Lung 1992;21:18–24.

21. Curley C, McEachern J, Speroff T. A firm trial of interdisciplinary rounds on the inpatient medical wards: an intervention designed using continuous quality improvement. Med Care 1998;36:AS4–12.

From the Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, MD (Drs. Johnson, Knight, Maygers, and Zakaria), and Duke University Hospital, Durham, NC (Dr. Mock).

Abstract

Objective: To determine patterns of telemetry use at a tertiary academic institution and identify factors contributing to noncompliance with guidelines regarding telemetry use.
Methods: Web-based survey of 180 providers, including internal medicine residents and cardiovascular disease fellows, hospitalists, non-hospitalist teaching attending physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants.
Results: Of the 180 providers surveyed, 67 (37%) replied. Most providers (76%) were unaware of guidelines regarding appropriate telemetry use and 85% selected inappropriate diagnoses as warranting telemetry. Only 21% routinely discontinued the telemetry order within 48 hours.
Conclusions: Many providers at a tertiary academic institution utilize continuous telemetry inappropriately and are unaware of telemetry guidelines. These findings should guide interventions to improve telemetry utilization.

For many decades, telemetry has been widely used in the management and monitoring of patients with possible acute coronary syndromes (ACS), arrhythmias, cardiac events, and strokes [1]. In addition, telemetry has often been used in other clinical scenarios with less rigorous data supporting its use [2–4]. As a result, in 2004 the American Heart Association (AHA) issued guidelines providing recommendations for best practices in hospital ECG monitoring. Indications for telemetry were classified into 3 diagnosis-driven groups: class I (indicated in all patients), class II (indicated in most patients, may be of benefit) and class III (not indicated, no therapeutic benefit) [2]. However, these recommendations have not been widely followed and telemetry is inappropriately used for many inpatients [5,6].

There are several reasons why clinicians fail to adhere to guidelines, including knowledge deficits, attitudes regarding the current guidelines, and institution-specific factors influencing practitioner behaviors [7]. In response to reports of widespread telemetry overuse, the Choosing Wisely Campaign of the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation has championed judicious telemetry use, advocating evidence-based, protocol-driven telemetry management for patients not in intensive care units who do not meet guideline-based criteria for continuous telemetry [8].

In order to understand patterns of telemetry use at our academic institution and identify factors associated with this practice, we systematically analyzed telemetry use perceptions through provider surveys. We hypothesized that providers have misperceptions about appropriate use of telemetry and that this knowledge gap results in overuse of telemetry at our institution.

Methods

Setting

Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center is a 400-bed academic medical center serving southeastern Baltimore. Providers included internal medicine residents and cardiovascular disease fellows who rotate to the medical center and Johns Hopkins Hospital, hospitalists, non-hospitalist teaching attending physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), and physician assistants (PAs).

Current Telemetry Practice

Remote telemetric monitoring is available in all adult, non-intensive care units of the hospital except for the psychiatry unit. However, the number of monitors are limited and it is not possible to monitor every patient if the wards are at capacity. Obstetrics uses its own unique cardiac monitoring system and thus was not included in the survey. Each monitor (IntelliVue, Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, Netherlands) is attached to the patient using 5 lead wires, with electrocardiographic data transmitted to a monitoring station based in the progressive care unit, a cardio-pulmonary step-down unit. Monitors can be ordered in one of 3 manners, as mandated by hospital policy: