Incidence, severity and detection of blood pressure and heart rate perturbations in postoperative ward patients after noncardiac surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine changes in continuous mean and systolic blood pressure and heart rate in a cohort of non-cardiac surgical patients recovering on the postoperative ward. Furthermore, we estimated the proportion of vital signs changes that would remain undetected with intermittent vital signs checks. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Post-operative general ward. PATIENTS: 14,623 adults recovering from non-cardiac surgical procedures. INTERVENTIONS & MEASUREMENTS: Using a wireless, noninvasive monitor, we recorded postoperative blood pressure and heart rate at 15-s intervals and encouraged nursing intervention as clinically indicated. MAIN RESULTS: 7% of our cohort of 14,623 patients spent >15 sustained minutes with a MAP <65 mmHg, and 23% had MAP <75 mmHg for 15 sustained minutes. Hypertension was more common, with 67% of patients spending at least 60 sustained minutes with MAP >110 mmHg. Systolic pressures <90 mmHg were present for 15 sustained minutes in about a fifth of all patients, and 40% of patients had pressures >160 mmHg sustained for 30 min. 40% of patients were tachycardic with heart rates >100 beats/min for at least continuous 15 min and 15% of patients were bradycardic at a threshold of <50 beats/min for 5 sustained minutes. Conventional vital sign assessments at 4-h intervals would have missed 54% of mean pressure episodes <65 mmHg sustained >15 min, 20% of episodes of mean pressures >130 mmHg sustained >30 min, 36% of episodes of heart rate > 120 beats/min sustained <10 min, and 68% of episodes of heart rate sustained <40 beats per minute for >3 min. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial hemodynamic disturbances persisted despite implementing continuous portable ward monitoring coupled with nursing alarms and interventions. A significant proportion of these changes would have gone undetected using traditional intermittent monitoring. Better understanding of effective responses to alarms and appropriate interventions on hospital wards remains necessary.

An Implementation Science Approach to Promote Optimal Implementation, Adoption, Use, and Spread of Continuous Clinical Monitoring System Technology.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to apply implementation science tenets to guide the deployment and use of in-hospital Clinical Monitoring System Technology (CMST) and to develop a toolkit to promote optimal implementation, adoption, use, and spread of CMST. METHODS: Six steps were carried out to (1) establish leadership support; (2) identify, educate, and sustain champions; (3) enlist clinical staff users to learn barriers and facilitators; (4) examine initial qualitative data from 11 clinician group interviews; (5) validate barriers/facilitators to CMST use and toolkit content; and (6) propose a toolkit to promote utilization. Clinical Monitoring System Technology output before and after implementation were compared. RESULTS: The top 3 barriers to effective CMST use were as follows: (1) inadequate education/training/support, (2) clinical workflow challenges, and (3) lack of communication. Facilitators to CMST implementation and adoption included the following: (1) providing comprehensive and consistent CMST education, (2) presenting evidence early and often, (3) tailoring device and usage expectations to individual environments, and (4) providing regular feedback about progress. Empirical data drove the development of a CMST implementation toolkit covering 6 areas: (1) why, (2) readiness, (3) readiness and implementation, (4) patient/family introduction, (5) champions, (6) care team saves, and (7) troubleshooting. Clinical Monitoring System Technology positively impacted failure to rescue events. Monthly median cardiac alert responses decreased from 30 to 3.64 minutes (87.9%), and respiratory alert responses decreased from 26 to 4.85 minutes (81.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Using implementation science tenets to concurrently guide deployment and study performance of 2 CMST devices and impact on workload was effective for both learning CMST efficacy at 2 hospital systems and developing a toolkit to promote optimal implementation, adoption, use, and spread.