Pro-Con Debate: Universal Versus Selective Continuous Monitoring of Postoperative Patients

Abstract

hesia care unit until discharge from the hospital. The strongest arguments for universal monitoring relate to inadequate assessment and algorithms for patient risk. We argue that the need for hospitalization in and of itself is a sufficient predictor of an individual’s risk for unexpected respiratory deterioration. In addition, general care units carry the added risk that even the most severe respiratory events will not be recognized in a timely fashion, largely due to higher patient to nurse staffing ratios and limited intermittent vital signs assessments (e.g., every 4 hours). Continuous monitoring configured properly using a “surveillance model” can adequately detect patients' respiratory deterioration while minimizing alarm fatigue and the costs of the surveillance systems. The Con position advocates for a mixed approach of time-limited continuous pulse oximetry monitoring for all patients receiving opioids, with additional remote pulse oximetry monitoring for patients identified as having a high risk of respiratory depression. Alarm fatigue, clinical resource limitations, and cost are the strongest arguments for selective monitoring, which is a more targeted approach. The proponents of the con position acknowledge that postoperative respiratory monitoring is certainly indicated for all patients, but not all patients need the same level of monitoring. The analysis and discussion of each point of view describes who, when, where, and how continuous monitoring should be implemented. Consideration of various system-level factors are addressed, including clinical resource availability, alarm design, system costs, patient and staff acceptance, risk-assessment algorithms, and respiratory event detection. Literature is reviewed, findings are described, and recommendations for design of monitoring systems and implementation of monitoring are described for the pro and con positions....