Amanda C Schondelmeyer, Hadley Sauers-Ford, Sara M Touzinsky, Patrick W Brady, Maria T Britto, Matthew J Molloy, Jeffrey M Simmons, Maria M Cvach, Samir S Shah, Lisa M Vaughn, James Won, Kathleen E Walsh
{"title":"Clinician Perspectives on Continuous Monitor Use in a Children's Hospital: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Amanda C Schondelmeyer, Hadley Sauers-Ford, Sara M Touzinsky, Patrick W Brady, Maria T Britto, Matthew J Molloy, Jeffrey M Simmons, Maria M Cvach, Samir S Shah, Lisa M Vaughn, James Won, Kathleen E Walsh","doi":"10.1542/hpeds.2023-007638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Variation in continuous cardiopulmonary monitor (cCPM) use across children's hospitals suggests preference-based use. We sought to understand how clinical providers make decisions to use cCPMs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structed interviews with clinicians (nurses, respiratory therapists [RTs], and resident and attending physicians) from 2 hospital medicine units at a children's hospital. The interview guide employed patient cases and open-ended prompts to elicit information about workflows and decision-making related to cCPM, and we collected basic demographic information about participants. We used an inductive approach following thematic analysis to code transcripts and create themes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We interviewed 5 nurses, 5 RTs, 7 residents, and 7 attending physicians. We discovered that clinicians perceive a low threshold for starting cCPM, and this often occurred as a default action at admission. Clinicians thought of cCPMs as helping them cope with uncertainty. Despite acknowledging considerable flaws in how cCPMs were used, they were perceived as a low-risk intervention. Although RNs and RTs were most aware of the patient's current condition and number of alarms, physicians decided when to discontinue monitors. No structured process for identifying when to discontinue monitors existed.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We concluded that nurses, physicians, and RTs often default to cCPM use and lack a standardized process for identifying when cCPM should be discontinued. Interventions aiming to reduce monitor use will need to account for or target these factors.</p>","PeriodicalId":38180,"journal":{"name":"Hospital pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"649-657"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11287064/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1542/hpeds.2023-007638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: Variation in continuous cardiopulmonary monitor (cCPM) use across children's hospitals suggests preference-based use. We sought to understand how clinical providers make decisions to use cCPMs.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative study using semi-structed interviews with clinicians (nurses, respiratory therapists [RTs], and resident and attending physicians) from 2 hospital medicine units at a children's hospital. The interview guide employed patient cases and open-ended prompts to elicit information about workflows and decision-making related to cCPM, and we collected basic demographic information about participants. We used an inductive approach following thematic analysis to code transcripts and create themes.
Results: We interviewed 5 nurses, 5 RTs, 7 residents, and 7 attending physicians. We discovered that clinicians perceive a low threshold for starting cCPM, and this often occurred as a default action at admission. Clinicians thought of cCPMs as helping them cope with uncertainty. Despite acknowledging considerable flaws in how cCPMs were used, they were perceived as a low-risk intervention. Although RNs and RTs were most aware of the patient's current condition and number of alarms, physicians decided when to discontinue monitors. No structured process for identifying when to discontinue monitors existed.
Conclusions: We concluded that nurses, physicians, and RTs often default to cCPM use and lack a standardized process for identifying when cCPM should be discontinued. Interventions aiming to reduce monitor use will need to account for or target these factors.