Update to Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic Monitoring in Hospital Settings: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: This scientific statement provides an interprofessional, comprehensive review of evidence and recommendations for indications, duration, and implementation of continuous electro cardiographic monitoring of hospitalized patients. Since the original practice standards were published in 2004, new issues have emerged that need to be addressed: overuse of arrhythmia monitoring among a variety of patient populations, appropriate use of ischemia and QT-interval monitoring among select populations, alarm management, and documentation in electronic health records. METHODS: Authors were commissioned by the American Heart Association and included experts from general cardiology, electrophysiology (adult and pediatric), and interventional cardiology, as well as a hospitalist and experts in alarm management. Strict adherence to the American Heart Association conflict of interest policy was maintained throughout the consensus process. Authors were assigned topics relevant to their areas of expertise, reviewed the literature with an emphasis on publications since the prior practice standards, and drafted recommendations on indications and duration for electrocardiographic monitoring in accordance with the American Heart Association Level of Evidence grading algorithm that was in place at the time of commissioning. RESULTS: The comprehensive document is grouped into 5 sections: (1) Overview of Arrhythmia, Ischemia, and QTc Monitoring; (2) Recommendations for Indication and Duration of Electrocardiographic Monitoring presented by patient population; (3) Organizational Aspects: Alarm Management, Education of Staff, and Documentation; (4) Implementation of Practice Standards; and (5) Call for Research. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the recommendations are based on limited data, so authors conclude with specific questions for further research.

Unnecessary arrhythmia monitoring and underutilization of ischemia and QT interval monitoring in current clinical practice: baseline results of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography trial.

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study was to examine the appropriate use of arrhythmia, ischemia, and QTc interval monitoring in the acute care setting. METHODS: We analyzed baseline data of the Practical Use of the Latest Standards for Electrocardiography (PULSE) trial, a multisite randomized clinical trial evaluating the effect of implementing electrocardiographic monitoring practice standards. Research nurses reviewed medical records for indications for monitoring and observed if arrhythmia, ischemia, and QT interval monitoring was being done on 1816 patients in 17 hospitals. RESULTS: Almost all (99%) patients with an indication for arrhythmia monitoring were being monitored, but 85% of patients with no indication were monitored. Of patients with an indication for ischemia monitoring, 35% were being monitored; but 26% with no indication were being monitored for ST-segment changes. Only 21% of patients with an indication for QT interval monitoring had a QTc documented, but 18% of patients with no indication had a QTc documented. CONCLUSION: Our data show evidence of inappropriate monitoring: undermonitoring for ischemia and QTc prolongation and overmonitoring for all 3 types of monitoring, especially arrhythmia monitoring.

Association of Implementation of Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic Monitoring With Nurses' Knowledge, Quality of Care, and Patient Outcomes: Findings From the Practical Use of the Latest Standards of Electrocardiography (PULSE) Trial.

BACKGROUND: Although continuous electrocardiographic (ECG) monitoring is ubiquitous in hospitals, monitoring practices are inconsistent. We evaluated implementation of American Heart Association practice standards for ECG monitoring on nurses' knowledge, quality of care, and patient outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PULSE (Practical Use of the Latest Standards of Electrocardiography) Trial was a 6-year multisite randomized clinical trial with crossover that took place in 65 cardiac units in 17 hospitals. We measured outcomes at baseline, time 2 after group 1 hospitals received the intervention, and time 3 after group 2 hospitals received the intervention. Measurement periods were 15 months apart. The 2-part intervention consisted of an online ECG monitoring education program and strategies to implement and sustain change in practice. Nurses' knowledge (N=3013 nurses) was measured by a validated 20-item online test, quality of care related to ECG monitoring (N=4587 patients) by on-site observation, and patient outcomes (mortality, in-hospital myocardial infarction, and not surviving a cardiac arrest; N=95 884 hospital admissions) by review of administrative, laboratory, and medical record data. Nurses' knowledge improved significantly immediately after the intervention in both groups but was not sustained 15 months later. For most measures of quality of care (accurate electrode placement, accurate rhythm interpretation, appropriate monitoring, and ST-segment monitoring when indicated), the intervention was associated with significant improvement, which was sustained 15 months later. Of the 3 patient outcomes, only in-hospital myocardial infarction declined significantly after the intervention and was sustained. CONCLUSIONS: Online ECG monitoring education and strategies to change practice can lead to improved nurses' knowledge, quality of care, and patient outcomes. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01269736.