A brief questionnaire for measuring alarm fatigue in nurses and physicians in intensive care units.

When exposed to hundreds of medical device alarms per day, intensive care unit (ICU) staff can develop "alarm fatigue" (i.e., desensitisation to alarms). However, no standardised way of quantifying alarm fatigue exists. We aimed to develop a brief questionnaire for measuring alarm fatigue in nurses and physicians. After developing a list of initial items based on a literature review, we conducted 15 cognitive interviews with the target group (13 nurses and two physicians) to ensure that the items are face valid and comprehensible. We then asked 32 experts on alarm fatigue to judge whether the items are suited for measuring alarm fatigue. The resulting 27 items were sent to nurses and physicians from 15 ICUs of a large German hospital. We used exploratory factor analysis to further reduce the number of items and to identify scales. A total of 585 submissions from 707 participants could be analysed (of which 14% were physicians and 64% were nurses). The simple structure of a two-factor model was achieved within three rounds. The final questionnaire (called Charité Alarm Fatigue Questionnaire; CAFQa) consists of nine items along two scales (i.e., the "alarm stress scale" and the "alarm coping scale"). The CAFQa is a brief questionnaire that allows clinical alarm researchers to quantify the alarm fatigue of nurses and physicians. It should not take more than five minutes to administer.

Staff perspectives on the influence of patient characteristics on alarm management in the intensive care unit: a cross-sectional survey study.

BACKGROUND: High rates of clinical alarms in the intensive care unit can result in alarm fatigue among staff. Individualization of alarm thresholds is regarded as one measure to reduce non-actionable alarms. The aim of this study was to investigate staff's perceptions of alarm threshold individualization according to patient characteristics and disease status. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey study (February-July 2020). Intensive care nurses and physicians were sampled by convenience. Data was collected using an online questionnaire. RESULTS: Staff view the individualization of alarm thresholds in the monitoring of vital signs as important. The extent to which alarm thresholds are adapted from the normal range varies depending on the vital sign monitored, the reason for clinical deterioration, and the professional group asked. Vital signs used for hemodynamic monitoring (heart rate and blood pressure) were most subject to alarm individualizations. Staff are ambivalent regarding the integration of novel technological features into alarm management. CONCLUSIONS: All relevant stakeholders, including clinicians, hospital management, and industry, must collaborate to establish a "standard for individualization," moving away from ad hoc alarm management to an intelligent, data-driven alarm management. Making alarms meaningful and trustworthy again has the potential to mitigate alarm fatigue - a major cause of stress in clinical staff and considerable hazard to patient safety. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03514173) on 02/05/2018.

Improving quality of care in less than 1 min: a prospective intervention study on postoperative handovers to the ICU/PACU.

PURPOSE: Standardisation of the postoperative handover process via checklists, trainings or procedural changes has shown to be effective in reducing information loss. The clinical friction of implementing these measures has received little attention. We developed and evaluated a visual aid (VA) and >1 min in situ training intervention to improve the quality of postoperative handovers to the intensive care unit (ICU) and postoperative care unit. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The VA was constructed and implemented via a brief (<1 min) training of anaesthesiologic staff during the operation. Ease of implementation was measured by amount of information transferred, handover duration and handover structure. 50 handovers were audio recorded before intervention and 50 after intervention. External validity was evaluated by blinded assessment of the recordings by experienced anaesthesiologists (n=10) on 10-point scales. RESULTS: The brief intervention resulted in increased information transfer (9.0-14.8 items, t(98)=7.44, p<0.0001, Cohen's d=1.59) and increased handover duration (81.3-192.8 s, t(98)=6.642, p=0.013, Cohen's d=1.33) with no loss in structure (1.60-1.56, t(98)=0.173, p=0.43). Blinded assessment on 10-point scales by experienced anaesthesiologists showed improved overall handover quality from 7.1 to 7.8 (t(98)=1.89, p=0.031, Cohen's d=0.21) and improved completeness of information (t(98)=2.42, p=0.009, Cohen's d=0.28) from 7.3 to 8.3. CONCLUSIONS: An intervention consisting of a simple VA and <1 min instructions significantly increased overall quality and amount of information transferred during ICU/postanaesthetic care unit handovers.