Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37620385›Full record

ReviewScientific reports2023

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

Maximilian Markus Wunderlich, Sandro Amende-Wolf, Henning Krampe, Jochen Kruppa, Claudia Spies, Björn Weiß, Belinda Memmert, Felix Balzer, Akira-Sebastian Poncette

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maximilian Markus Wunderlich *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Sandro Amende-Wolf *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Henning KrampeDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Jochen KruppaHochschule Osnabrück, University of Applied Sciences, Osnabrück, Germany.
Claudia SpiesDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Björn WeißDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Belinda MemmertDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Felix Balzer *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Akira-Sebastian Poncette *Institute of Medical Informatics, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Corporate Member of Freie Universität Berlin and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Berlin, Germany. akira-sebastian.poncette@charite.de.
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin · DEHochschule Osnabrück · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Indexed as

Clinical AlarmsNursesPhysiciansAdaptation, PsychologicalHumansIntensive Care Units

Identifiers

PMID37620385
PMCPMC10449802
OpenAlexW4386136449

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.