Winters Bradford D, Cvach Maria M, Bonafide Christopher P, Hu Xiao, Konkani Avinash, O'Connor Michael F, Rothschild Jeffrey M, Selby Nicholas M, Pelter Michele M, McLean Barbara, Kane-Gill Sandra L
1Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD.2Department of Integrated Healthcare Delivery, Johns Hopkins Health System, Baltimore, MD.3Department of Pediatrics, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.4Departments of Physiological Nursing and Neurological Surgery, UC Berkeley/UCSF Joint Bio-Engineering Graduate Programe, Berkeley, CA.5Department of Clinical Engineering, Clinical Engineering Professional Services, University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA.6Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.7Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA.8Department of Nephrology, Centre for Kidney Research and Innovation, School of Medicine, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, United Kingdom.9Department of Physiological Nursing, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA.10Critical Care Division, Department of Critical Care, Grady Health Systems, Atlanta, GA.11Department of Pharmacy and Therapeutics, Critical Care Medicine, Biomedical Informatics, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA.
Crit Care Med. 2018 Jan;46(1):130-137. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0000000000002803.
Alarm fatigue is a widely recognized safety and quality problem where exposure to high rates of clinical alarms results in desensitization leading to dismissal of or slowed response to alarms. Nonactionable alarms are thought to be especially problematic. Despite these concerns, the number of clinical alarm signals has been increasing as an everincreasing number of medical technologies are added to the clinical care environment.
PubMed, SCOPUS, Embase, and CINAHL.
We performed a systematic review of the literature focused on clinical alarms. We asked a primary key question; "what interventions have been attempted and resulted in the success of reducing alarm fatigue?" and 3-secondary key questions; "what are the negative effects on patients/families; what are the balancing outcomes (unintended consequences of interventions); and what human factor approaches apply to making an effective alarm?"
Articles relevant to the Key Questions were selected through an iterative review process and relevant data was extracted using a standardized tool.
We found 62 articles that had relevant and usable data for at least one key question. We found that no study used/developed a clear definition of "alarm fatigue." For our primary key question 1, the relevant studies focused on three main areas: quality improvement/bundled activities; intervention comparisons; and analysis of algorithm-based false and total alarm suppression. All sought to reduce the number of total alarms and/or false alarms to improve the positive predictive value. Most studies were successful to varying degrees. None measured alarm fatigue directly.
There is no agreed upon valid metric(s) for alarm fatigue, and the current methods are mostly indirect. Assuming that reducing the number of alarms and/or improving positive predictive value can reduce alarm fatigue, there are promising avenues to address patient safety and quality problem. Further investment is warranted not only in interventions that may reduce alarm fatigue but also in defining how to best measure it.
警报疲劳是一个广为人知的安全和质量问题,即暴露于高频率的临床警报会导致脱敏,从而导致对警报不予理会或反应迟缓。不可操作的警报被认为问题尤其严重。尽管存在这些担忧,但随着越来越多的医疗技术被应用于临床护理环境,临床警报信号的数量一直在增加。
PubMed、SCOPUS、Embase和CINAHL。
我们对聚焦于临床警报的文献进行了系统综述。我们提出了一个主要关键问题:“尝试了哪些干预措施并成功减少了警报疲劳?”以及三个次要关键问题:“对患者/家属有哪些负面影响?平衡结果(干预措施的意外后果)是什么?以及哪些人为因素方法适用于制作有效的警报?”
通过迭代评审过程选择与关键问题相关的文章,并使用标准化工具提取相关数据。
我们发现62篇文章至少有一个关键问题的相关且可用数据。我们发现没有研究使用/制定“警报疲劳”的明确定义。对于我们的主要关键问题1,相关研究集中在三个主要领域:质量改进/综合活动;干预比较;以及基于算法的误报和总警报抑制分析。所有这些都试图减少总警报和/或误报的数量,以提高阳性预测值。大多数研究在不同程度上取得了成功。没有一项研究直接测量警报疲劳。
对于警报疲劳没有公认的有效指标,目前的方法大多是间接的。假设减少警报数量和/或提高阳性预测值可以减少警报疲劳,那么有一些有前景的途径来解决患者安全和质量问题。不仅有必要进一步投资于可能减少警报疲劳的干预措施,还需要投资于定义如何最好地测量警报疲劳。