AJCC
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Respond to This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Patton, J.
Right arrow Articles by Funk, M
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Patton, J.
Right arrow Articles by Funk, M
American Journal of Critical Care, Vol 10, Issue 1, 23-32
Copyright © 2001 by American Association of Critical Care Nurses


Articles

Survey of use of ST-segment monitoring in patients with acute coronary syndromes

JA Patton and M Funk .

BACKGROUND: Although effective for assessing ongoing myocardial ischemia, ST-segment monitoring may be underused. OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of cardiac units in the United States that use ST-segment monitoring, hospital and unit characteristics associated with its use, how units use such monitoring with respect to research recommendations, if units that use ST-segment monitoring find it clinically useful and easy to use, and why some units are not using this type of monitoring. METHODS: A survey on ST-segment monitoring was mailed to a random sample of 500 cardiac nurse managers and clinical nurse specialists. RESULTS: Of the final 192 respondents, 104 (54.2%) reported that they were using ST-segment monitoring. Monitor brand was the only characteristic associated with use of this monitoring (P = .03). On units that used ST-segment monitoring, patients were monitored if they had myocardial infarction (81%), unstable angina (79.6%), or possible myocardial infarction (78.6%) and after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (47.6%). Leads were chosen according to unit protocol (60.2%) and 12-lead electrocardiographic findings (48.5%); leads II (95.0%) and V1 (75.2%) were used most often. The majority of units that use ST-segment monitoring agreed that it is clinically useful (83%) and easy to use (56%). Among the units not using ST-segment monitoring, the most common reason was that physicians were not interested (27.1%). CONCLUSIONS: ST-segment monitoring is not routinely used; when it is, research recommendations are often not followed. Increased awareness is needed among cardiac nurses and physicians of the clinical usefulness and proper use of ST-segment monitoring.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
CirculationHome page
B. J. Drew, R. M. Califf, M. Funk, E. S. Kaufman, M. W. Krucoff, M. M. Laks, P. W. Macfarlane, C. Sommargren, S. Swiryn, and G. F. Van Hare
Practice Standards for Electrocardiographic Monitoring in Hospital Settings: An American Heart Association Scientific Statement From the Councils on Cardiovascular Nursing, Clinical Cardiology, and Cardiovascular Disease in the Young: Endorsed by the International Society of Computerized Electrocardiology and the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses
Circulation, October 26, 2004; 110(17): 2721 - 2746.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Association of Critical-Care Nurses.