Observational studyNursing in critical care2025
A descriptive investigation of alarm activation in a critical care setting.
Observational study in Nursing in critical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A comprehensive cross-sectional study of bedside monitor alarm characteristics and alarm load across hospital units.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Nurses' Clinical Alarm-Related Behaviors and Their Associated Factors in Malawian Critical Care Units: A Cross-Sectional Study.Journal of nursing management · 2026Article
- Nano-Enabled Microfluidic Platforms for Functional Immunomonitoring in Pediatric Sepsis.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- A descriptive investigation of alarm activation in a critical care setting.Nursing in critical care · 2025Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlarm fatigue, a phenomenon referring to clinicians being desensitized to the high volume of monitoring alarms, can impact the working environment, clinical care and patient outcomes. Explorations and understandings of alarm fatigue have yet to be a focus of attention in the Australian context.
aimTo describe the prevalence and type of alarms activated in intensive care and cardiac units in a major metropolitan hospital in Victoria, Australia. STUDY
designThis study was a descriptive observation study of patient monitoring data gathered over a 1-month time frame during April 2019. Data from the Philips Healthcare IntelliVue® Patient Monitoring system were extracted. After classifying the alarms into types (clinical or technical) and levels of urgency (lower or higher priority), further descriptive analysis was conducted to quantify the most prevalent alarms.
resultsDuring the study period, a total of 271 414 activated alarms were identified. The majority were clinical alarms (89.1%) compared with technical alarms (10.9%). Clinical alarms tended to be classified as high priority (55.1%); the most common were heart rate (36.7%) and premature ventricular contraction (18.8%). Technical alarms were predominantly electrocardiogram lead disconnection (89%). The frequency of alarms per patient-bed day was highest in the acute cardiac unit (98 alarms) compared with the intensive care unit (67 alarms).
conclusionStaff education and a culture of individual alarm customization might influence the number of alarms activated in the study settings. Further research is also required to examine alarm fatigue in other Australian critical care settings, and responses to alarms by clinicians, and whether these responses are calibrated to detect clinical deterioration and sentinel events. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: A bundle of interventions should be in place to increase the accuracy of alarm monitoring and to reduce non-actionable alarms in order to reduce the possible impacts on clinicians, patients and their families/visitors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.