RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Stats on the desats: alarm fatigue and the implications for patient safety
JF BMJ Open Quality
JO BMJ Open Qual
FD British Medical Journal Publishing Group
SP e002262
DO 10.1136/bmjoq-2023-002262
VO 12
IS 3
A1 Anderson, Hannah R
A1 Borgen, Alex C
A1 Christnacht, Rebecca
A1 Ng, Jenny
A1 Weller, Joel G
A1 Davison, Halley N
A1 Noseworthy, Peter A
A1 Olson, Rachel
A1 O'Laughlin, Danielle
A1 Disrud, Levi
A1 Kashou, Anthony H
YR 2023
UL http://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/content/12/3/e002262.abstract
AB Background Physiological monitoring systems, like Masimo, used during inpatient hospitalisation, offer a non-invasive approach to capture critical vital signs data. These systems trigger alarms when measurements deviate from preset parameters. However, often non-urgent or potentially false alarms contribute to ‘alarm fatigue,’ a form of sensory overload that can have adverse effects on both patients and healthcare staff. The Joint Commission, in 2021, announced a target to mitigate alarm fatigue-related fatalities through improved alarm management. Yet, no established guidelines are presently available. This study aims to address alarm fatigue at the Mayo Clinic to safeguard patient safety, curb staff burnout and improve the sensitivity of oxygen saturation monitoring to promptly detect emergencies.Methods A quality improvement project was conducted to combat minimise the false alarm burden, with data collected 2 months prior to intervention commencement. The project’s goal was to decrease the total alarm value by 20% from 55%–85% to 35%–75% within 2 months, leveraging quality improvement methodologies.Interventions February to April 2021, we implemented a two-pronged intervention: (1) instituting a protocol to evaluate patients’ continuous monitoring needs and discontinuing it when appropriate, and (2) introducing educational signage for patients and Mayo Clinic staff on monitoring best practices.Results Baseline averages of red alarms (158.6), manual snoozes (37.8) and self-resolves (120.7); the first postintervention phase showed reductions in red alarms (125.5), manual snoozes (17.8) and self-resolves (107.8). Second postintervention phase recorded 138 red alarms, 13 manual snoozes and 125 self-resolves. Baseline comparison demonstrated an average of 16.92% reduction of alarms among both interventions (p value: 0.25).Conclusion Simple interventions like education and communication techniques proved instrumental in lessening the alarm burden for patients and staff. The findings underscore the practical use and efficacy of these methods in any healthcare setting, thus contributing to mitigating the prevalent issue of alarm fatigue.