Clinical alarms and alarm fatigue in a University Hospital Emergency Department-A retrospective data analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alarm fatigue is hypothesized to be caused by vast amount of patient monitor alarms. Objectives were to study the frequency and types of patient monitor alarms, to evaluate alarm fatigue, and to find unit specific alarm threshold values in a university hospital emergency department. METHODS: We retrospectively gathered alarm data from 9 September to 6 October 2019, in Jorvi Hospital Emergency department, Finland. The department treats surgical, internal and general medicine patients aged 16 and older. The number of patients is on average 4600 to 5000 per month. Eight out of 46 monitors were used for data gathering and the monitored modalities included electrocardiography, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and pulse oximetry. RESULTS: Total number of alarms in the study monitors was 28 176. Number of acknowledged alarms (ie acknowledgement indicator pressed in the monitor) was 695 (2.5%). The most common alarm types were: Respiratory rate high, 9077 (32.2%), pulse oximetry low, 4572 (16.2%) and pulse oximetry probe off, 4036 (14.3%). Number of alarms with duration under 10 s was 14 936 (53%). Number of individual alarm sounds was 105 000, 469 per monitor per day. Of respiratory rate high alarms, 2846 (31.4%) had initial value below 30 breaths min-1 . Of pulse oximetry low alarms, 2421 (53.0%) had initial value above 88%. CONCLUSIONS: Alarm sound load, from individual alarm sounds, was nearly continuous in an emergency department observation room equipped with nine monitors. Intervention by the staff to the alarms was infrequent. More than half of the alarms were momentary.

Clinical Alarms in a Gynaecological Surgical Unit: A Retrospective Data Analysis.

Alarm fatigue refers to the desensitisation of medical staff to patient monitor clinical alarms, which may lead to slower response time or total ignorance of alarms and thereby affects patient safety. The reasons behind alarm fatigue are complex; the main contributing factors include the high number of alarms and the poor positive predictive value of alarms. The study was performed in the Surgery and Anaesthesia Unit of the Women's Hospital, Helsinki, by collecting data from patient monitoring device clinical alarms and patient characteristics from surgical operations. We descriptively analysed the data and statistically analysed the differences in alarm types between weekdays and weekends, using chi-squared, for a total of eight monitors with 562 patients. The most common operational procedure was caesarean section, of which 149 were performed (15.7%). Statistically significant differences existed in alarm types and procedures between weekdays and weekends. The number of alarms produced was 11.7 per patient. In total, 4698 (71.5%) alarms were technical and 1873 (28.5%) were physiological. The most common physiological alarm type was low pulse oximetry, with a total of 437 (23.3%). Of all the alarms, the number of alarms either acknowledged or silenced was 1234 (18.8%). A notable phenomenon in the study unit was alarm fatigue. Greater customisation of patient monitors for different settings is needed to reduce the number of alarms that do not have clinical significance.