Key result
Mechanical ventilation alarms are often excessive, with <15% being clinically actionable, highlighting the need for individualized alarm tuning to improve patient safety and clinician well-being.
Why the study?
Clinical alarms, including those for mechanical ventilation, are leading health technology hazards with fewer than 15% being clinically relevant or actionable.
This review highlights the vulnerabilities in current mechanical ventilation alarm management and recommends individualized alarm tuning to reduce alarm fatigue and improve patient safety.
Alarm fatigue from mechanical ventilation warrants clinical attention; leaves open optimal tuning strategies pending prospective trials.
Clinical alarms, including those for mechanical ventilation, have been one of the leading causes of health technology hazards. It has been reported that < 15% of alarms studied rose to the level of being clinically relevant or actionable. Most alarms in health care, whether by default or intention, are set to a hypothetical average patient, which is essentially a one size fits most approach. A method of tuning to individual patient characteristics is possible, similar to the treatment philosophy of precision medicine. The excessive amount of alarms in a clinical environment is thought to be the largest contributing factor to alarm-related adverse events. All these factors come to bear on human perception and response to mechanical ventilation and clinical alarms. Observations of human response to stimuli suggest that response to alarms is closely matched to the perceived reliability and value of the alarm system. This paper provides a review examining vulnerabilities in the current management of mechanical ventilation alarms and summarizes best practices identified to help prevent patient injury. This review examines the factors that affect alarm utility and provides recommendations for applying research findings to improve safety for patients, clinician efficiency, and clinician well-being.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Walsh et al. (2020) conducted a review in Mechanical ventilation. Mechanical ventilation alarms management was evaluated. Mechanical ventilation alarms are often excessive, with <15% being clinically actionable, highlighting the need for individualized alarm tuning to improve patient safety and clinician well-being.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: