Observational studyNoise & health
Perceived ICU Alarm-Noise Burden, Staff-Reported Health Effects, and Contextual Objective Night-Time Acoustic Monitoring in an Adult Intensive Care Unit.
Observational study in Noise & health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine intensive care unit (ICU) staff-perceived alarm-noise burden and related health, communication, workload, and alarm-response outcomes, contextualized by usual-care night-time acoustic monitoring.
methodsWe conducted a single-center observational study combining an electronic survey of ICU healthcare professionals with contextual bed-level night-time acoustic monitoring. The survey assessed perceived unit noise, alarm-related health and performance effects, communication interference, alarm-response behavior, alarm-governance perceptions, modified workload, and noise sensitivity. Acoustic outcomes included the equivalent continuous sound level, the maximum sound level, and the time above 80 dBA. Acoustic data were not linked to individual staff responses. Descriptive statistics, Cronbach's alpha, Spearman correlations, and exploratory multivariable regression were used.
resultsAmong 124 respondents, 83 were nurses, 20 were respiratory therapists, 18 were physicians, and 3 were allied health/other staff. Median perceived unit noise was 7/10 (interquartile range, 5-8), and 67 respondents (54.0%) rated noise as high. Excessive alarms triggered physical symptoms in 70 (56.5%), reduced work performance or motivation in 63 (50.8%), affected concentration or attention in 60 (48.4%), and interfered with communication in 48 (38.7%). Twenty-eight respondents (22.6%) reported missed alarms due to sensory overload.
conclusionICU alarm noise was perceived as an occupational health and workflow burden. Contextual acoustic monitoring showed measurable night-time sound exposure. Quiet ICU interventions should combine alarm hygiene, escalation governance, workflow redesign, central alarm visibility, and objective acoustic surveillance while preserving patient safety.
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.