CClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT02529176Updated Nov 14, 2019

Trial of a Best-Practice Alert in the Electronic Medical Record to Reduce Unnecessary Telemetry Monitoring

An interventional study of Best-practice alert in Arrhythmia, sponsored by University of California, San Francisco. Completed. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2019-11-14.

Sponsored by University of California, San Francisco · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic

Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
1,021
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

This is a randomized trial of a best-practice alert delivered via the electronic medical record (Apex) to physicians on the Medicine service at UCSF Medical Center over a six month period. The alert notifies physicians that their order for continuous cardiac monitoring (telemetry) for a given patient has exceeded the duration recommended by national guidelines and offers them the opportunity to discontinue monitoring if they feel it is clinically appropriate. Physicians will be randomized to either receive the BPA or not, with the anticipation that physicians in the intervention arm will discontinue unnecessary telemetry.

Read the detailed description

Physicians often order continuous cardiac monitoring (telemetry) for their patients in the hospital. Telemetry provides real-time heart rate and rhythm monitoring and can be useful for detecting arrhythmias and evaluating the response to cardiac therapies. Leads on the patient's chest detect the electrical signature of the heartbeat, relay the information to a box in the patient's shirt pocket, and this box relays the signal in real-time to a control room where technicians monitor for abnormalities. If a technician notes an abnormality he or she will contact the appropriate provider. Currently, physicians can order telemetry at UCSF Medical Center with or without providing an indication for its use. In addition, telemetry remains active until the provider discontinues it or the patient leaves the hospital. Studies at UCSF and hospitals nationwide demonstrate that telemetry is overused. Physicians either order it without a valid indication or they do not remember to discontinue it when the indication is no longer valid. Guidelines published by the American Heart Association provide clarity regarding what clinical conditions warrant telemetry and for how long. However, numerous studies demonstrate that physicians do not faithfully follow these guidelines. This led the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation to urge physicians in Hospital Medicine to develop protocols governing the use of telemetry outside of the intensive care unit in a 2013 campaign called Choosing Wisely.

The harms of telemetry overuse are myriad: 1) Frequent false or unimportant alarms lead to alarm fatigue and studies have documented patient harm when subsequent real alarms were ignored. False alarms also often necessitate a visit to the patient by the nurse and this distracts the nurse from other patients, 2) Monitoring patients without an active cardiac condition often reveals clinically unimportant abnormalities that obligate physicians to work them up, just by virtue of having seen them on monitor. The work-up then results in unnecessary cost and anxiety, 3) Leads on the patient's chest often fall off with movement and have to be replaced by the nurse. This discourages patients from getting more exercise while they are hospitalized, which is a risk factor for muscle atrophy, and getting enough sleep, which is a risk factor for delirium, 4) Telemetry is not available for all hospital beds at UCSF and even units where it is available have limitations for the types of arrhythmias they can monitor. Thus, telemetry monitoring for a patient who does not need it can prevent another patient from having timely access to a monitor-capable bed.

In order to reduce unnecessary telemetry use, we propose to use a best-practice alert (BPA) delivered to physicians by the electronic medical record (Apex). We propose to study this BPA in a randomized trial. Physicians on the Medicine service would be randomized to either receive the BPA on their patients or not during a six month study period. We would examine both groups for the following outcomes: physician response to the alert, total hours of telemetry used, number of rapid response activations for arrhythmic events, and number of code blue events.

02

Conditions studied

  • Arrhythmia

Browse trials for

Keywords

  • telemetry
  • cardiac monitoring
03

In context

Arrhythmias, Cardiac

885 studies on the registry are indexed under Arrhythmias, Cardiac; 234 are open to participants now.

This study's enrollment of 1,021 is above the median of 99 across 429 interventional studies indexed under Arrhythmias, Cardiac.

Browse Arrhythmias, Cardiac studies →

Lead sponsor

University of California, San Francisco is the lead sponsor of 2,132 studies on the registry; 375 are open to participants now.

Of its 262 completed or terminated interventional studies of FDA-regulated products, 196 (75%) have results posted.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

  • Resident or attending physician on the Medicine service during the six month trial period.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • None
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Diagnostic
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Single group
Masking
Single (Investigator)
Enrollment
1,021 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Best-practice alert

    Receive the best-practice alert (BPA) during the course of their clinical work in the electronic medical record.

    Behavioral: Best-practice alert

  • No intervention
    No alert

    Physicians will receive no best-practice alert from the electronic medical record.

Interventions

  • BehavioralBest-practice alert

    The best-practice alert notifies physicians that their patient's telemetry monitoring duration has exceeded national guidelines and gives the physician the option to: discontinue monitoring if they feel it is clinically appropriate, dismiss the alert, or re-alert in four hours.

    Also known as: BPA

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Duration of cardiac monitoring across all patients cared for by the physicians in the study.

    Time frame: Over the course of the six month trial

Secondary outcomes

  1. Code blue and rapid response rates in the hospital

    Time frame: During the six month trial period

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Publications

  • Estrada CA, Rosman HS, Prasad NK, Battilana G, Alexander M, Held AC, Young MJ. Role of telemetry monitoring in the non-intensive care unit. Am J Cardiol. 1995 Nov 1;76(12):960-5. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9149(99)80270-7. PubMed 7484840 ↗
  • Najafi N, Auerbach A. Use and outcomes of telemetry monitoring on a medicine service. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Sep 24;172(17):1349-50. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2012.3163. No abstract available. PubMed 22892708 ↗
  • Benjamin EM, Klugman RA, Luckmann R, Fairchild DG, Abookire SA. Impact of cardiac telemetry on patient safety and cost. Am J Manag Care. 2013 Jun 1;19(6):e225-32. PubMed 23844751 ↗
  • Dressler R, Dryer MM, Coletti C, Mahoney D, Doorey AJ. Altering overuse of cardiac telemetry in non-intensive care unit settings by hardwiring the use of American Heart Association guidelines. JAMA Intern Med. 2014 Nov;174(11):1852-4. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.4491. No abstract available. PubMed 25243419 ↗
  • Najafi N, Cucina R, Pierre B, Khanna R. Assessment of a Targeted Electronic Health Record Intervention to Reduce Telemetry Duration: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 1;179(1):11-15. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.5859. PubMed 30535345 ↗
09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Nov 14, 2019, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT02529176
Lead sponsor
University of California, San Francisco
Responsible party
Nader Najafi, MD (Assistant Clinical Professor, University of California, San Francisco) — Principal investigator
First posted
Aug 20, 2015
Start date
Dec 2016
Primary completion
Jun 2017
Completion
Jun 2017
Last update
Nov 14, 2019

Study contacts

Nader Najafi, MD
principal investigator · University of California, San Francisco

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion