Finley G A, Cohen A J
Department of Anaesthesia, Dalhousie University.
Can J Anaesth. 1991 Nov;38(8):958-64. doi: 10.1007/BF03008611.
Increasing numbers and varieties of electronic monitors are used in hospital operating rooms. Many of these are equipped with auditory alarms which are loud, insistent, or irritating, and thus are frequently disabled by the anaesthetist. This study was planned to evaluate two components of auditory alarm design which may influence the usefulness of the alarm: the perceived urgency of the auditory signal and its correlation with the urgency of the corresponding clinical situation. We also assessed the ability of practising anaesthetists to identify the monitor or condition responsible for the alarm. Sixty-four anaesthetists attending a national conference assessed ten common operating room alarm sounds for perceived urgency. Results were compared with the urgency of the corresponding clinical situation as determined by 12 senior anaesthetists. Discrepancies between the clinical and perceived urgencies of several monitor alarms were found, and there was no correlation between the two measures. The subjects were also tested for their ability to identify the alarm sounds correctly. The overall correct identification rate was 33%, and only two monitors were correctly identified by more than 50% of the subjects. The results of this study have implications for design and use of auditory alarms in hospitals and suggest the need for further research.
医院手术室中使用的电子监测器数量和种类日益增加。其中许多配备了听觉警报器，这些警报器声音大、持续不断或令人烦躁，因此麻醉师经常将其禁用。本研究旨在评估听觉警报设计中可能影响警报效用的两个因素：听觉信号的感知紧迫性及其与相应临床情况紧迫性的相关性。我们还评估了执业麻醉师识别引发警报的监测器或状况的能力。参加全国会议的64名麻醉师对十种常见手术室警报声音的感知紧迫性进行了评估。将结果与12名资深麻醉师确定的相应临床情况的紧迫性进行了比较。发现几种监测器警报的临床紧迫性与感知紧迫性之间存在差异，且这两种测量方法之间没有相关性。还测试了受试者正确识别警报声音的能力。总体正确识别率为33%，只有两种监测器被超过50%的受试者正确识别。本研究结果对医院听觉警报的设计和使用具有启示意义，并表明有必要进行进一步研究。
