Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40116752›Full record

ArticleJMIR cardio2025

Efficiency Improvement of the Clinical Pathway in Cardiac Monitor Insertion and Follow-Up: Retrospective Analysis.

Ville Vanhala, Outi Surakka, Vilma Multisilta, Mette Lundsby Johansen, Jonas Villinger, Emmanuelle Nicolle, Johanna Heikkilä, Pentti Korhonen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cardio, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Ville VanhalaTampere Heart Hospital, Elämänaukio 1, Tampere, 33520, Finland, 358 3311716.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4801-9395
Outi SurakkaJamk University of Applied Sciences, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-8110-5413
Vilma MultisiltaTampere Heart Hospital, Elämänaukio 1, Tampere, 33520, Finland, 358 3311716.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-2695-1898
Mette Lundsby JohansenMedtronic Denmark, Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0008-4587-041X
Jonas VillingerMedtronic International Trading Sarl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8858-6434
Emmanuelle NicolleMedtronic International Trading Sarl, Tolochenaz, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7357-5620
Johanna HeikkiläJamk University of Applied Sciences, Jyväskylä, Finland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8255-3618
Pentti KorhonenTampere Heart Hospital, Elämänaukio 1, Tampere, 33520, Finland, 358 3311716.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0004-5659-0932

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) clinical pathway in Tampere Heart Hospital, Finland, did not correspond to the diagnostic needs of the population. There has been growing evidence of delegating the insertion from cardiologists to specially trained nurses and outsourcing the remote follow-up. However, it is unclear if the change in the clinical pathway is safe and improves efficiency. Objective: We aim to describe and assess the efficiency of the change in the ICM clinical pathway. Methods: Pathway improvements included initiating nurse-performed insertions, relocating the procedure from the catheterization laboratory to a procedure room, and outsourcing part of the remote follow-up to manage ICM workload. Data were collected from electronic health records of all patients who received an ICM in the Tampere Heart Hospital in 2018 and 2020. Follow-up time was 36 months after insertion. Results: The number of inserted ICMs doubled from 74 in 2018 to 159 in 2020. In 2018, cardiologists completed all insertions, while in 2020, a total of 70.4% (n=112) were completed by nurses. The waiting time from referral to procedure was significantly shorter in 2020 (mean 36, SD 27.7 days) compared with 2018 (mean 49, SD 37.3 days; P=.02). The scheduled ICM procedure time decreased from 60 minutes in 2018 to 45 minutes in 2020. Insertions performed in the catheterization laboratory decreased significantly (n=14, 18.9% in 2018 and n=3, 1.9% in 2020; P=<.001). Patients receiving an ICM after syncope increased from 71 to 94 patients. Stroke and transient ischemic attack as an indication increased substantially from 2018 to 2020 (2 and 62 patients, respectively). In 2018, nurses analyzed all remote transmissions. In 2020, the external monitoring service escalated only 11.2% (204/1817) of the transmissions to the clinic for revision. This saved 296 hours of nursing time in 2020. Having nurses insert ICMs in 2020 saved 48 hours of physicians' time and the shorter scheduling for the procedure saved an additional 40 hours of nursing time compared with the process in 2018. Additionally, the catheterization laboratory was released for other procedures (27 h/y). The complication rate did not change significantly (n=2, 2.7% in 2018 and n=5, 3.1% in 2020; P=.85). The 36-month diagnostic yield for syncope remained high in 2018 and 2020 (n=32, 45.1% and n=36, 38.3%; P=.38). The diagnostic yield for patients who had stroke with a procedure in 2020 was 43.5% (n=27). Conclusions: The efficiency of the clinical pathway for patients eligible for an ICM insertation can be increased significantly by shifting to nurse-led insertions in procedure rooms and to the use of an external monitoring and triaging service.

Indexed as

Critical PathwaysAgedFemaleFinlandFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective Studiesclinical pathwayefficiency improvementinsertable cardiac monitornurse-led serviceremote monitoringtask shifting

Identifiers

PMID40116752
PMCPMC11951822

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.