Are auditory warnings in the intensive care unit properly adjusted?

Managing alarm systems for quality and safety in the hospital setting

OBJECTIVE

To provide an overview of documented studies and initiatives that demonstrate efforts to manage and improve alarm systems for quality in healthcare by human, organisational and technical factors.

METHODS

A literature review, a grey literature review, interviews and a review of alarm-related standards (IEC 60601-1-8, IEC 62366-1:2015 and ANSI/Advancement of Medical Instrumentation HE 75:2009/2013) were conducted. Qualitative analysis was conducted to identify common themes of improvement elements in the literature and grey literature reviews, interviews and the review of alarm-related standards.

RESULTS

21 articles and 7 publications on alarm quality improvement work were included in the literature and grey literature reviews, in which 10 themes of improvement elements were identified. The 10 themes were categorised into human factors (alarm training and education, multidisciplinary teamwork, alarm safety culture), organisational factors (alarm protocols and standard procedures, alarm assessment and evaluation, alarm inventory and prioritisation, and sharing and learning) and technical factors (machine learning, alarm configuration and alarm design). 26 clinicians were interviewed. 9 of the 10 themes were identified from the interview responses. The review of the standards identified 3 of the 10 themes. The study findings are also presented in a step-by-step guide to optimise implementation of the improvement elements for healthcare organisations.

CONCLUSIONS

Improving alarm safety can be achieved by incorporating human, organisational and technical factors in an integrated approach. There is still a gap between alarm-related standards and how the standards are translated into practice, especially in a clinical environment that uses multiple alarming medical devices from different manufacturers. Standardisation across devices and manufacturers and the use of machine learning in improving alarm safety should be discussed in future collaboration between alarm manufacturers, end users and regulators.

[Audit of the bedside monitor alarms in a critical care unit]

AIMS

Quantifying and evaluating the response to the bedside monitor alarms (BMA) by nurses in intensive care unit (ICU).

METODOLOGY

Prospective observational study (October 2011-January 2012). Randomized blind audit on alarm management. Alarm programming and alarm limits were related to experience in ICU. We evaluated the response to BMA with the variables: alarm type (relevant/not relevant/alert) and response type. Descriptive analysis of variables for multivariate ANOVA and Chi-square test with SPSS 17.0.

RESULTS

434 audits were analyzed. The programming was: Blood pressure (BP) 88.25%, heart rate (HR) 98.62% O(2) saturation (SO) 96.79%, respiratory rate (FR) 65.75%. The alarms originated were BP 49.73%, 10.75% HR, 39.25% SO, 3.27% FS. The nurse responded to 93.3% of them and 50% were treated before 10 sec. 56.16% of the alarms were not relevant, 25.12% relevant and 18.72% alerting. 41.8% were due to handling.

CONCLUSION

The alarms are programmed/attended by the nurse and there is uniformity in programming/selection limits. 25% of BMA carried therapeutic attitude.

[Reaction time of a health care team to monitoring alarms in the intensive care unit: implications for the safety of seriously ill patients]

OBJECTIVE

To define the characteristics and measure the reaction time of a health care team monitoring alarms in the intensive care unit.

METHODS

A quantitative, observational, and descriptive study developed at the coronary care unit of a cardiology public hospital in Rio de Janeiro state (RJ). Data were obtained from the information collected on the patients, the monitoring used, and the measurement of the team's reaction time to the alarms of multi-parameter monitors during a non-participatory field observation.

RESULTS

Eighty-eight patients were followed (49 during the day shift and 39 during the night shift). During the 40 hours of observation (20 hours during the day shift and 20 hours during the night shift), the total number of monitoring alarms was 227, with 106 alarms during the day shift and 121 during the night shift, an average of 5.7 alarms/hour. In total, 145 alarms unanswered by the team were observed, with 68 occurring during the day shift (64.15%) and 77 during the night shift (63.64%). This study demonstrated that the reaction time was longer than 10 minutes in more than 60% of the alarms, which were considered as unanswered alarms. The median reaction time of the answered alarms was 4 minutes and 54 seconds during the day shift and 4 minutes and 55 seconds during the night shift. The respiration monitoring was activated in only nine patients (23.07%) during the night shift. Regarding the alarm quality of these variables, the arrhythmia alarm was qualified in only 10 (20.40%) of the day-shift patients and the respiration alarm in four night-shift patients (44.44%).

CONCLUSION

The programming and configuration of the physiological variables monitored and the parameters of alarms in the intensive care unit were inadequate; there was a delay and lack of response to the alarms, suggesting that relevant alarms may have been ignored by the health care team, thus compromising the patient safety.

Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review

Alarm fatigue is a national problem and the number one medical device technology hazard in 2012. The problem of alarm desensitization is multifaceted and related to a high false alarm rate, poor positive predictive value, lack of alarm standardization, and the number of alarming medical devices in hospitals today. This integrative review synthesizes research and non-research findings published between 1/1/2000 and 10/1/2011 using The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice model. Seventy-two articles were included. Research evidence was organized into five main themes: excessive alarms and effects on staff; nurse's response to alarms; alarm sounds and audibility; technology to reduce false alarms; and alarm notification systems. Non-research evidence was divided into two main themes: strategies to reduce alarm desensitization, and alarm priority and notification systems. Evidence-based practice recommendations and gaps in research are summarized.

Attitude of resident doctors towards intensive care units' alarm settings

Intensive care unit (ICU) monitors have alarm options to intimate the staff of critical incidents but these alarms needs to be adjusted in every patient. With this objective in mind, this study was done among resident doctors, with the aim of assessing the existing attitude among resident doctors towards ICU alarm settings. This study was conducted among residents working at ICU of a multispeciality centre, with the help of a printed questionnaire. The study involved 80 residents. All residents were in full agreement on routine use of ECG, pulse oximeter, capnograph and NIBP monitoring. 86% residents realised the necessity of monitoring oxygen concentration, apnoea monitoring and expired minute ventilation monitoring. 87% PGs and 70% SRs routinely checked alarm limits for various parameters. 50% PGs and 46.6% SRs set these alarm limits. The initial response to an alarm among all the residents was to disable the alarm temporarily and try to look for a cause. 92% of PGs and 98% of SRs were aware of alarms priority and colour coding. 55% residents believed that the alarm occurred due to patient disturbance, 15% believed that alarm was due to technical problem with monitor/sensor and 30% thought it was truly related to patient's clinical status. 82% residents set the alarms by themselves, 10% believed that alarms should be adjusted by nurse, 4% believed the technical staff should take responsibility of setting alarm limits and 4% believed that alarm levels should be pre-adjusted by the manufacturer. We conclude that although alarms are an important, indispensable, and lifesaving feature, they can be a nuisance and can compromise quality and safety of care by frequent false positive alarms. We should be familiar of the alarm modes, check and reset the alarm settings at regular interval or after a change in clinical status of the patient.