Why the study?
Hospitals have many false alarms leading to alarm fatigue, where desensitized clinicians may inadvertently ignore real threats.
Does individualized dynamic patient monitoring reduce patient harm compared to current alarm settings under alarm fatigue?
Does individualized dynamic patient monitoring reduce patient harm compared to current alarm settings under alarm fatigue?
A dynamic, individualized approach to setting vital sign alarms can reduce patient harm by mitigating the 'boy who cried wolf' effect of alarm fatigue.
Dynamic alarm settings merit prospective trials to reduce harm; leaves open real-world translation from modeling.
Individualized Patient Monitoring Under Alarm Fatigue Hospitals are rife with alarms, many of which are false. This leads to alarm fatigue, in which clinicians become desensitized and may inadvertently ignore real threats. “Individualized Dynamic Patient Monitoring Under Alarm Fatigue” by Piri, Huh, Shechter, and Hudson studies the problem of personalizing alarm thresholds for vital signs at a hospital while considering the ”boy who cried wolf” effect of false alarms. The authors create a model that learns patients’ personal alarm thresholds during their hospital stay and updates their alarm settings dynamically. They formulate the problem as a partially observable Markov decision process. They provide structural properties of the optimal policy and perform a numerical case study based on clinical data from an intensive care unit. They show that dynamic methods of alarm settings that explicitly consider the feedback loop of false positives can significantly reduce patient harm when compared with current methods of alarm settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Piri et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: