Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33530699›Full record

ArticleAnaesthesia and intensive care2021

Reducing medical device alarms by an order of magnitude: A human factors approach.

Erik Koomen, Craig S Webster, David Konrad, Johannes G van der Hoeven, Thomas Best, Jozef Kesecioglu, Diederik Ampj Gommers, Willem B de Vries, Teus H Kappen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Anaesthesia and intensive care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
4.8field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 7 institutions in 4 countries.

Erik KoomenDepartment of Paediatrics, Paediatric Intensive Care, Wilhelmina Children's Hospital, Academic Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7192-1227
Craig S WebsterDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Centre for Medical and Health Sciences Education, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
David KonradDepartment of Perioperative Medicine and Intensive Care at Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Johannes G van der HoevenDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Radboud Academic Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Thomas BestDepartment of Critical Care, King's College Hospital, London, UK.
Jozef KeseciogluDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Academic Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Diederik Ampj GommersDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, Erasmus Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Willem B de VriesDepartment of Neonatology, Academic Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Teus H KappenDepartment of Anaesthesia, Intensive Care and Emergency, Academic Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Utrecht · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLKarolinska University Hospital · SEKing's College Hospital · GBRadboud University Nijmegen · NLUniversity of Auckland · NZWilhelmina Children's Hospital · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intensive care unit (ICU) is one of the most technically advanced environments in healthcare, using a multitude of medical devices for drug administration, mechanical ventilation and patient monitoring. However, these technologies currently come with disadvantages, namely noise pollution, information overload and alarm fatigue-all caused by too many alarms. Individual medical devices currently generate alarms independently, without any coordination or prioritisation with other devices, leading to a cacophony where important alarms can be lost amongst trivial ones, occasionally with serious or even fatal consequences for patients. We have called this approach to the design of medical devices the single-device paradigm, and believe it is obsolete in modern hospitals where patients are typically connected to several devices simultaneously. Alarm rates of one alarm every four minutes for only the physiological monitors (as recorded in the ICUs of two hospitals contributing to this paper) degrades the quality of the patient's healing environment and threatens patient safety by constantly distracting healthcare professionals. We outline a new approach to medical device design involving the application of human factors principles which have been successful in eliminating alarm fatigue in commercial aviation. Our approach comprises the networked-device paradigm, comprehensive alarms and humaniform information displays. Instead of each medical device alarming separately at the patient's bedside, our proposed approach will integrate, prioritise and optimise alarms across all devices attached to each patient, display information more intuitively and hence increase alarm quality while reducing the number of alarms by an order of magnitude below current levels.

Indexed as

Clinical AlarmsEquipment DesignHumansIntensive Care UnitsMonitoring, PhysiologicPatient Safetyalarm integrationalarmsaviation.comprehensive alarmsfuture ICU designhuman factorsICUmodern hospitalpatient safetyredesign device chain

Identifiers

PMID33530699
PMCPMC7905747
OpenAlexW3128926672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.