Download PDF
Am J Perinatol 2024; 41(S 01): e2348-e2355
DOI: 10.1055/a-2113-8364
Original Article

The Alarm Fatigue Challenge in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit: A “before” and “after” Study

Yanin Fontana Stiglich
1   Department of Neonatology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
,
Pablo H. Brener Dik
1   Department of Neonatology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
,
Maria S. Segura
1   Department of Neonatology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
,
Gonzalo L. Mariani
1   Department of Neonatology, Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina
› Author Affiliations Funding None.
› Further Information
Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective Alarm fatigue (AF) happens when professionals are exposed to many alarms and they become desensitized to them. It is related to proliferation of devices, not standardized alarm limits, and high prevalence of “nonactionable alarms,” i.e., false alarms (triggered by equipment issues) or nuisance alarms (physiological change not requiring clinical action). When AF happens, response time seems to be longer and important alarms could be dismissed. After evaluating the situation in our neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), an alarm management program (AMP) was developed to reduce AF. The objective of this study were to compare the proportion of true alarms, nonactionable alarms, and to measure response time to alarms in the NICU before and after implementing an AMP and also to determine variables associated with nonactionable alarms and response time.

Study Design This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 100 observations were collected between December 2019 and January 2020. After an AMP was implemented, 100 new observations were collected between June 2021 and August 2021. We estimated the true and nonactionable alarms proportion. Univariate analyses were performed to determine variables associated with nonactionable alarms and response time. Logistic regression was performed to assess independent variables.

Results The proportion of true alarms before and after AMP was 31 versus 57% (p = 0.001), whereas the proportion of nonactionable alarms was 69 versus 43% (p = 0.001). Median response time was significantly reduced (35 versus 12 seconds; p = 0.001). Before AMP, neonates with less intensive care needs had a higher proportion of nonactionable alarms and a longer response time. After AMP, response time was similar for true and nonactionable alarms. For both periods, the need of respiratory support was significantly associated with true alarms (p = 0.001). In the adjusted analysis, response time (p = 0.001) and respiratory support (p = 0.003) remained associated with nonactionable alarms.

Conclusion AF was highly prevalent in our NICU. This study shows that after the implementation of an AMP, response time to alarms and the proportion of nonactionable alarms can be significantly reduced.

Key Points

  • AF happens when professionals are exposed to many alarms and they become desensitized to them.

  • The presence of AF can compromise patients' safety.

  • The implementation of an AMP can reduce AF.

Keywords

alarm fatigue - patient safety - clinical alarms - neonatal intensive care


Publication History

Received: 23 November 2022

Accepted: 19 June 2023

Accepted Manuscript online:
20 June 2023

Article published online:
24 July 2023

© 2023. Thieme. All rights reserved.

Thieme Medical Publishers, Inc.
333 Seventh Avenue, 18th Floor, New York, NY 10001, USA

 

  • References

  • 1 Rocha PK, Do Prado ML, De Almeida Cabral PF, Jatobá de Souza AI, Anders JC. Technology and caring in intensive care units. Index Enferm 2013; 22 (03) 156-160
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Doménech B. Avances en neonatología. An Esp Pediatr 1999; 51 (01) 97-106
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Graham KC, Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: standardizing use of physiological monitors and decreasing nuisance alarms. Am J Crit Care 2010; 19 (01) 28-34 , quiz 35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Jones K. Alarm fatigue a top patient safety hazard. CMAJ 2014; 186 (03) 178
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Johnson KR, Hagadorn JI, Sink DW. Alarm safety and alarm fatigue. Clin Perinatol 2017; 44 (03) 713-728
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 The Joint Commission. National patient safety goals. Accessed January 2022 at: https://www.jointcommission.org/standards/national-patient-safety-goals/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ketko AK, Martin CM, Nemshak MA, Niedner M, Vartanian RJ. Balancing the tension between hyperoxia prevention and alarm fatigue in the NICU. Pediatrics 2015; 136 (02) e496-e504
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Johnson KR, Hagadorn JI, Sink DW. Reducing alarm fatigue in two neonatal intensive care units through a quality improvement collaboration. Am J Perinatol 2018; 35 (13) 1311-1318
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Varisco G, van de Mortel H, Cabrera-Quiros L. et al. Optimisation of clinical workflow and monitor settings safely reduces alarms in the NICU. Acta Paediatr 2021; 110 (04) 1141-1150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Graham KC, Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: standardizing use of physiological monitors and decreasing nuisance alarms. Am J Crit Care 2010; 19 (01) 28-34 , quiz 35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Lewis CL, Oster CA. Research outcomes of implementing CEASE: an innovative, nurse-driven, evidence-based, patient-customized monitoring bundle to decrease alarm fatigue in the intensive care unit/step-down unit. Dimens Crit Care Nurs 2019; 38 (03) 160-173
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review. Biomed Instrum Technol 2012; 46 (04) 268-277
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Berghella V, Boelig R, Roman A, Burd J, Anderson K. Decreased incidence of preterm birth during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020; 2 (04) 100258
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Hedermann G, Hedley PL, Bækvad-Hansen M. et al. 1 Changes in premature birth rates during the Danish nationwide COVID-19 lockdown: a nationwide register-based prevalence proportion study. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed 2021; 106 (01) 93-95
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Atzema C, Schull MJ, Borgundvaag B, Slaughter GR, Lee CK. ALARMED: adverse events in low-risk patients with chest pain receiving continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in the emergency department. A pilot study. Am J Emerg Med 2006; 24 (01) 62-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Lawless ST. Crying wolf: false alarms in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 1994; 22 (06) 981-985
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Bonafide CP, Lin R, Zander M. et al. Association between exposure to nonactionable physiologic monitor alarms and response time in a children's hospital. J Hosp Med 2015; 10 (06) 345-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Chambrin MC, Ravaux P, Calvelo-Aros D, Jaborska A, Chopin C, Boniface B. Multicentric study of monitoring alarms in the adult intensive care unit (ICU): a descriptive analysis. Intensive Care Med 1999; 25 (12) 1360-1366
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Speich ME. Reducing Alarm Fatigue in the Intensive Care Unit: A Quality Improvement Research Study [dissertation]. University of Connecticut; 2017
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Salous M, Alkhawaldeh J, Kewan S, Aburashideh H, Hani DB, Alzayyat A. Nurses' attitudes related to alarm fatigue in critical care units: a systematic review. IOSR J Nurs Health Sci 2017; 6 (02) 62-66
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Bustamante EA, Bliss JP, Anderson BL. Effects of varying the threshold of alarm systems and workload on human performance. Ergonomics 2007; 50 (07) 1127-1147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar