Summary of Data by Donna Quinton Brown RN, AASN, Alumnus CCRN, LifeSync® Corp. and M. Ann Anderson, MS, RN Director of Clinical Affairs, LifeSync Corporation
In January of 2008 a 395-bed hospital located in St. Petersburg, Florida added the LifeSync® Wireless ECG System to their infection control bundle and monitoring procedure. The hospital began a three month study using the LifeSync® Wireless ECG System in order to determine the effectiveness of the LifeSync® System for three primary points of interest:
The first was the amount of time off monitor for patient ordered on monitor (i.e., lead pop off, electrode off, etc.);
The second was the validity of alarms; and
The third was infection rates for MRSA, VRE, Acinetobacter, and C. Difficile (combined) for the first quarter of this year compared to the average of those infection rates for the four quarters of the previous year
Study Population and Collection Methods
The patient populations studied for the alarm and time off monitor were chosen at random by the hospital clinicians from the ED, ICU, CVICU, CVT and PCU of the hospital. The information was collected by the hospital’s infection control nurse and consisted of retrospective infection rates from the previous year’s four quarters (averaged) as well as infection rates observed during the study. The alarm data for the consensus validation and for the period of the study was collected and reviewed in the same patient care areas by the staff clinicians and the LifeSync field employee who was providing validation support. Hard copies were made and reviewed by the hospital Director of Acute Inpatient Care. Any patient data that could not be printed for verification and backup were not used in the study. All data were reviewed by the Director of Acute Inpatient Care and have been supported by the hospital¹. Information for the time off monitor was collected by the LifeSync field employee and the staff clinicians. The hospital provided full disclosure of data acquired for monitoring time and monitoring subjects at the unit’s central stations for the consensus validation period. The patients involved in the alarm portion of the study were the same patients involved in the leads off portion of the study. All data were printed and reviewed by the Director of Acute Inpatient Care if hard copy back up could be obtained for review and verification.
The Hospital’s Findings, as Reported to LifeSync Corporation
Time off Monitor1:
The hospital saw a 90% reduction in unscheduled time off monitor with the LifeSync® Wireless ECG System compared to the wired monitoring system. Credit for this improvement in patient safety was given solely to the LifeSync® Wireless ECG System since that was the only difference in the two groups of monitored patients.1
Alarm Accuracy Data1:
The hospital reported that the alarms noted with patients on the wired ECG systems were 30% true (accurate) and alarms noted with patients on the LifeSync® Wireless ECG System were 87% true (accurate). Again, the improvement was credited by the hospital solely to the implementation of the LifeSync® Wireless ECG System since that system was the only difference in the groups of monitored patients.1
STEMI Time Reduction1:
Code STEMI time was reduced by 5 minutes¹
Infection Rate Data1:
The infection rate for the first quarter of 2008 compared to the average rate of the four quarters of 2007 showed a 71% drop in MRSA, VRE and acinetobacter and a 30% drop in C. difficile for which The hospital gave partial credit to the LeadWear® Wireless ECG System.
1. Article references availible upon request.