Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-sh8wx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-20T04:53:35.385Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A Re-Audit of ECG Monitoring in Patients Admitted to the General Adult Inpatient Wards at Clock View Hospital, Liverpool, Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2023

Yasmine Elagamy*
Affiliation:
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Cherian John
Affiliation:
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Adetokunbo Dacosta
Affiliation:
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Declan Hyland
Affiliation:
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Nesma Hassan
Affiliation:
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
Ryaz Nankoo
Affiliation:
Mersey Care NHS Foundation Trust, Liverpool, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Aims

The aim of this re-audit was to analyse current practice following a previous audit of ECG monitoring in patients admitted to the general adult wards at Clock View Hospital in 2020 and determine whether recommendations made from the original audit have improved performance.The objectives of this re-audit were: screen for recording of the admission ECG; ensure clear documentation of the ECG report; identify any reason why the ECG was not performed within 24 hours of admission and identify whether inpatients with an abnormal ECG on admission had any further investigation(s) done.

Methods

92 inpatients discharged from the three general adult wards at Clock View Hospital between 1st of January 2022 and 31st of March 2022 was obtained. The same audit tool designed and used in the original audit in 2020 was used for this re-audit. Each inpatient's electronic record was reviewed to determine whether an ECG was performed within 24 hours of admission. In those patients who didn't have an ECG done, the reason why was recorded (if documented) and whether those patients who had an abnormal ECG were referred for further investigation. The quality of documentation of ECG reports was analysed.

Results

Of the 92 inpatients, 57 (62%) had an ECG within 24 hours of admission and 16 (17%) had one done more than 24 hours after admission. 19 (21%) inpatients never had an ECG done at any point during their admission. The reason for not performing an ECG was documented for 32 (91%) of affected inpatients. Of the 73 inpatients who had an ECG done, 16 (22%) had an abnormal ECG, but only nine had further investigation (56% vs 23% in the original audit).

Conclusion

The findings from this re-audit showed that completion of an ECG within 24 hours of admission to the general adult inpatient wards at Clock View Hospital has improved from 52% to 62%. There has been improvement in quality of documentation of ECG reports. There was no documentation of the ECG report in 13% of cases compared to 35% in the original audit. In almost all affected cases, the reason for not performing an ECG was documented. The authors recommend creating an alert on the electronic record system if an ECG is not performed within 24 hours of admission and asking the ECG reporting service to copy the ECG report to the ward clerk and / or Consultant PA to ensure the report is reviewed promptly.

Type
Audit
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NC
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. This does not need to be placed under each abstract, just each page is fine.
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.