Data quality of bedside monitoring in an intensive care unit

• Published in: International journal of clinical monitoring and computing 1994-05, Vol.11 (2), p.123-128
• Main Authors: FRIESDORF, W, KONICHEZKY, S, GROSS-ALLTAG, F, FATTROTH, A, SCHWILK, B
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Automatic Data Processing; Biological and medical sciences; Data Collection; Documentation; Emergency and intensive care: techniques, logistics; Germany; Humans; Intensive care medicine; Intensive care unit. Emergency transport systems. Emergency, hospital ward; Intensive Care Units; Medical Records Systems, Computerized - standards; Medical sciences; Monitoring, Physiologic - instrumentation; Monitoring, Physiologic - standards; Quality Control
• ISSN: 0167-9945
• DOI: 10.1007/BF01259562

Computerized record keeping promises complete, accurate and legible documentation. Reliable measurements are a prerequisite to fulfill these expectations. We analyzed the physiological variables provided by bedside monitoring devices in 657 bedside visits performed by an experienced Intensive Care nurse during 75 Intensive Care rounds. We registered which variables were displayed. If a variable was displayed, we assessed whether it could be used for documentation or should be rejected. If a value was rejected the reason was registered as: the measurement was not intended (superfluous display), the current clinical situation did not allow proper measurement, or other reasons. Basic variables (vital signs and respiration related variables) were displayed in more then 90%, specific variables (e.g. intracranial pressure) were displayed in less than 50% of the situations. Displayed variables were superfluous on an average of 11% because measurement was not intended. Variables like heart rate, temperature, airway pressure, minute volume of ventilation, arrhythmia, pulmonary arterial pressure, non-invasive blood pressure, and intracranial pressure provide high quality measured values (acceptance of more than 90%). Invasive arterial pressure, central venous pressure, respiration rate and oxygen saturation (via pulse oximetry) provided lower quality values with a rejection rate higher than 10%. Inappropriate sensor technology to match the clinical environment seems to be the root cause. In future the request for automatic documentation will increase. In order to avoid additional staff workload and to ensure reliable documentation, sensor technology especially related to respiration rate, blood pressure measurements, and pulse oximetry should be improved.