Evaluation of Telemetry Utilization, Policy, and Outcomes in an Inner-City Academic Medical Center
Abstract
Objective To evaluate the appropriateness and intermediate outcomes of telemetry admissions. Methods We abstracted demographic and clinical data from records of all new telemetry admissions during a 2-month period. To determine appropriateness, 2 authors classified patients using the American College of Cardiology (ACC) guidelines and our telemetry policy. Other utilization and outcome measures were assessed. Agreement between both guidelines was computed (kappa coefficient). Categorical group covariates were compared using chi2 test. Variations in telemetry length of stay (LOS) were compared using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests. LOS predictors were ascertained by multiple regression analysis. Results Of the 120 patients, appropriate admission was 81.6% (ACC criteria) and 83% by our criteria. Guidelines interrater reliability was .89 (kappa). Telemetry events incidence was 33.3%, with 5.8% major and 27.5% minor. LOS was longer among major than minor events group(7.8 vs. 3.4 days, p = .01). Type of telemetry event was a predictor of LOS (p = .0001). The occurrence of a major telemetry event was associated with cardiology consultation (p = .03). Conclusions Appropriate telemetry admission was observed in more than 80% of cases. Our telemetry policy had very good agreement with standard guideline. However, the low rate of major telemetry events in all patient groups suggests current guidelines might have considerable limitations.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
EPS has a limited role in the evaluation of syncope, especially in patients without known heart disease or with low suspicion of an arrhythmic etiology.
“Despite these purported benefits, EPS has a limited role in the evaluation of syncope, especially in patients without known heart disease or with low suspicion of an arrhythmic etiology (117,187,188).”
From 2017 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline for the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Syncope (2017) · cites this paper as [187]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 9 · Cited by 15
- Authors
- Ivonye, C., Ohuabunwo, C., Henriques-Forsythe, M., Uma, J., Kamuguisha, L. K., Olejeme, K., & Onwuanyi, A.
- Affiliations
- Morehouse School of Medicine (US)
- Grady Memorial Hospital (US)
- Corresponding author
- Ivonye, Chinedu
- Venue
- Journal of the National Medical Association
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-07
- Volume
- 102
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 598-604
- ISSN
- 0027-9684 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1487357915
- Cited by
- 15
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 1.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of the National Medical Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM051586)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › ECG Monitoring and Analysis
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Hospital Admissions and Outcomes
- Keywords
- appropriateness of hospitalization, length of hospital stay, guideline adherence, inter-rater reliability, cardiology consultation, intermediate outcomes
- MeSH terms
- Academic Medical Centers, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Georgia, Humans, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Patient Admission, Prospective Studies, Telemetry, Urban Population, Organizational Policy, Practice Guidelines as Topic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review