Enfermeria intensiva · 2020
Alarm Fatigue in the Intensive Care Unit: Relevance and Response Time.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Andrade-Méndez B, Arias-Torres D O, Gómez-Tovar L O
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To establish the presence of alarm fatigue, the clinical relevance of alarms and the stimulus-response time of the health team in an Adult Intensive Care Unit.
METHOD: Descriptive, quantitative, observational study, developed in the Multipurpose Adult Intensive Care Unit. Population made up of health personnel and the ICU teams. The method used was non-participant observation. Follow-up was carried out over 120 hours in three months. The variables studied were number of alarms activated, time elapsed between the alert sound of the blood pressure parameter, heart rate and oximetry and the response of the health personnel who attended the alarm. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: 5,147 alarms were detected, on average 43 alarms / hour, of these 52.8% corresponded to multiparameter monitors and the rest to other equipment. Of those generated by multiparameter monitors, 37.3% were blood pressure, 33.4% oximetry and 29.3% heart rate. The clinical relevance was low in 42.7%, medium in 49.8% and high in 7.5%. The stimulus response time was between 0 and 60 seconds for 37% of the alarms; however, 42.5% had no response, which is why they are considered fatigued. A statistically significant relationship was found between the response time and the clinical relevance of the alarms (p = .000).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of alarm fatigue was evident; with predominance of clinical relevance in the middle and low ranges. The health personnel responded within the time established for timely attention to the non-fatigued alarms.
METHOD: Descriptive, quantitative, observational study, developed in the Multipurpose Adult Intensive Care Unit. Population made up of health personnel and the ICU teams. The method used was non-participant observation. Follow-up was carried out over 120 hours in three months. The variables studied were number of alarms activated, time elapsed between the alert sound of the blood pressure parameter, heart rate and oximetry and the response of the health personnel who attended the alarm. A descriptive statistical analysis was carried out.
RESULTS: 5,147 alarms were detected, on average 43 alarms / hour, of these 52.8% corresponded to multiparameter monitors and the rest to other equipment. Of those generated by multiparameter monitors, 37.3% were blood pressure, 33.4% oximetry and 29.3% heart rate. The clinical relevance was low in 42.7%, medium in 49.8% and high in 7.5%. The stimulus response time was between 0 and 60 seconds for 37% of the alarms; however, 42.5% had no response, which is why they are considered fatigued. A statistically significant relationship was found between the response time and the clinical relevance of the alarms (p = .000).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of alarm fatigue was evident; with predominance of clinical relevance in the middle and low ranges. The health personnel responded within the time established for timely attention to the non-fatigued alarms.