ArticleCureus2026
Assessing Telemetry Utilization in Inpatient Care: Establishing and Evaluating the Impact of a Telemetry Admission Protocol.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cardiac telemetry monitoring is an essential tool for assessing cardiac function in hospitalized patients; however, its overuse in low-risk populations can increase healthcare costs, alarm fatigue, and unnecessary resource utilization. This study aimed to assess the use of cardiac telemetry at a tertiary care center in Puerto Rico. Using a retrospective cross-sectional review of medical records, we evaluated whether telemetry was used appropriately according to established clinical criteria and identified patterns of overuse. The findings provide a foundation for developing an institutional telemetry protocol to optimize telemetry utilization, enhance patient safety, and improve cost-effectiveness. A total of 822 hospitalized patients receiving cardiac telemetry were included. Variables such as history of cardiac disease, comorbidities, length of stay, indication for telemetry, and duration of monitoring were analyzed. Our findings revealed that 476 (57.9%) patients received telemetry for non-evidence-based reasons, while 346 (42.1%) had clear clinical indications. Patients with non-evidence-based telemetry had longer monitoring durations, averaging 5.68 ± 5.90 days compared to 2.98 ± 2.94 days for those with evidence-based indications. They also spent slightly less time in the emergency department, with a mean of 7.18 ± 4.73 hours, compared to 7.98 ± 6.44 hours for the evidence-based group. Although not statistically significant (p = 0.137), the mean length of stay was higher among non-evidence-based cases (6.73 ± 8.25 days) than among evidence-based cases (4.46 ± 7.38 days). These differences contributed to an estimated cost of $4,711 per patient for non-evidence-based telemetry compared to $3,122 per patient for evidence-based monitoring. This study suggests that implementing standardized, evidence-based guidelines for telemetry initiation and discontinuation could reduce overuse, lower costs, decrease alarm fatigue, and maintain patient safety while showcasing the potential benefits of a hospital-wide protocol to optimize telemetry practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.