Descriptive cross-sectional study evaluates alarm management challenges among ICU nurses, suggesting improvements in safety.
Abstract Background Clinical alarms play a crucial role in ensuring patient safety in intensive care units (ICUs). However, excessive alarms and ineffective alarm management contribute to alarm fatigue among nurses, potentially compromising patient care. Objective This study aimed to evaluate ICU nurses' awareness of clinical alarm settings, response times, challenges associated with alarm management, and the prevalence of alarm fatigue. Methods A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted among 60 ICU nurses at a tertiary care hospital. Data collection involved demographic profile, observational assessments of alarm awareness and response times, and self-report surveys addressing obstacles to alarm management and alarm fatigue. Statistical analysis was performed via SPSS version 21. Results The majority of participants (65%) were between 21 and 24 years old, with 83.3% being female. Awareness of patient monitoring and infusion pump alarms was universal (100%); however, 10% of nurses demonstrated insufficient knowledge of ventilator alarm settings. In terms of response times, 86.7% of the participants reported ventilator alarms within two minutes, whereas 83.3% responded to infusion pump alarms within the same timeframe. The most frequently cited obstacle to alarm management was inadequate staffing (55%), followed by frequent false alarms (20%) and difficulty identifying alarm sources (20%). Alarm fatigue was prevalent, with nurses reporting symptoms such as anxiety (70%), difficulty concentrating (65%), and headaches (58.3%). Conclusion Despite ICU nurses exhibiting high awareness of clinical alarms, concerns remain regarding delayed response times and the impact of alarm fatigue. Addressing staff shortages, implementing standardized alarm management protocols, and minimizing false alarms are essential to enhancing both patient safety and nurse well-being.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ramachandiran et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: