Olga Selioutski, Peggy Auinger, Michel Berg, Ramona Cranmer, Gretchen L Birbeck, Susan T Herman
{"title":"Lack of Continuous Video EEG Surveillance Results in Delayed Event Reporting.","authors":"Olga Selioutski, Peggy Auinger, Michel Berg, Ramona Cranmer, Gretchen L Birbeck, Susan T Herman","doi":"10.1080/21646821.2024.2375477","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although real-time event detection during video EEG recording is required to ensure patients' safety, it is limited by the technologists' availability. We sought to explore the efficiency of real-time event detection by the EEG technologists in a single tertiary academic center. We retrospectively reviewed events from continuous inpatient video EEGs (cEEGs) and epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) recordings in January 2017, when real-time surveillance was only available during the night shift, and June 2017, when a dedicated neurodiagnostic EEG technologist was available for real-time monitoring during all shifts. The events were categorized into those detected immediately (eyes-on), later in the same shift (delayed) or identified on the subsequent shift (missed). Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical comparisons. In January 2017, there were 25 patients (117 days of monitoring) in the EMU and 54 inpatients (146 days of monitoring) on cEEG with 92 total events, (39% seizures). In June 2017, there were 30 patients (133 days of monitoring) in the EMU and 47 additional inpatients (80 days of monitoring) on cEEG with 110 total events, (39% seizures). The number of events identified in real time was low and did not significantly differ among shifts regardless of the availability of the monitoring technologist. Most events were identified at the time of subsequent EEG scanning by the EEG technologist. Partial staffing for continuous video EEG surveillance is insufficient to identify events in real time. EEG technologists are able to identify events during regular EEG scanning.</p>","PeriodicalId":22816,"journal":{"name":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","volume":" ","pages":"122-129"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Neurodiagnostic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21646821.2024.2375477","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/7/16 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Health Professions","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Although real-time event detection during video EEG recording is required to ensure patients' safety, it is limited by the technologists' availability. We sought to explore the efficiency of real-time event detection by the EEG technologists in a single tertiary academic center. We retrospectively reviewed events from continuous inpatient video EEGs (cEEGs) and epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU) recordings in January 2017, when real-time surveillance was only available during the night shift, and June 2017, when a dedicated neurodiagnostic EEG technologist was available for real-time monitoring during all shifts. The events were categorized into those detected immediately (eyes-on), later in the same shift (delayed) or identified on the subsequent shift (missed). Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used for statistical comparisons. In January 2017, there were 25 patients (117 days of monitoring) in the EMU and 54 inpatients (146 days of monitoring) on cEEG with 92 total events, (39% seizures). In June 2017, there were 30 patients (133 days of monitoring) in the EMU and 47 additional inpatients (80 days of monitoring) on cEEG with 110 total events, (39% seizures). The number of events identified in real time was low and did not significantly differ among shifts regardless of the availability of the monitoring technologist. Most events were identified at the time of subsequent EEG scanning by the EEG technologist. Partial staffing for continuous video EEG surveillance is insufficient to identify events in real time. EEG technologists are able to identify events during regular EEG scanning.
期刊介绍:
The Neurodiagnostic Journal is the official journal of ASET - The Neurodiagnostic Society. It serves as an educational resource for Neurodiagnostic professionals, a vehicle for introducing new techniques and innovative technologies in the field, patient safety and advocacy, and an avenue for sharing best practices within the Neurodiagnostic Technology profession. The journal features original articles about electroencephalography (EEG), evoked potentials (EP), intraoperative neuromonitoring (IONM), nerve conduction (NC), polysomnography (PSG), autonomic testing, and long-term monitoring (LTM) in the intensive care (ICU) and epilepsy monitoring units (EMU). Subject matter also includes education, training, lab management, legislative and licensure needs, guidelines for standards of care, and the impact of our profession in healthcare and society. The journal seeks to foster ideas, commentary, and news from technologists, physicians, clinicians, managers/leaders, and professional organizations, and to introduce trends and the latest developments in the field of neurodiagnostics. Media reviews, case studies, ASET Annual Conference proceedings, review articles, and quizzes for ASET-CEUs are also published in The Neurodiagnostic Journal.