Search

Alarms are ubiquitous in anaesthetic practice, but their net effect on anaesthesiologists' performance and patient safety is debated. In this study, 27 anaesthesiologists performed two simulation sessions in random order; one session was programmed to include an alarm condition, with a standard, frequent, clearly audible alarm sound. During these sessions, adverse events were simulated and anaesthesiologists' response times to these events were recorded. Perceived workload was assessed with the NASA Task Load Index. Response times to adverse events and perceived workload were similar in both groups. Pooled response times to atrial fibrillation and desaturation were fast, with a median (range [IQR]) of 8 (4-14 [1-41]) s and 9 (6-16 [1-44]) s, respectively. Pooled response times to an ST segment elevation on the ECG and an obstructed intravenous line were significantly slower, with median (IQR[range]) times of 34 (21-76[4-300]) s and 227 (95-399 [2-600]) s, respectively (p < 0.001). This study shows that in a simulated anaesthesia environment, response times to adverse events are similar in the absence or presence of an audible alarm, and that response times to various critical events differ. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Alarms are key components of peri-operative monitoring devices, but a high false-alarm rate may lead to desensitisation and neglect. The objective of this study was to quantify the number of alarms and assess the value of these alarms during moderate-risk surgery. For this purpose, we analysed documentation of anaesthesia workstations during 38 surgical procedures. Alarms were classified on technical validity and clinical relevance. The median ( IQR [range]) alarm density per procedure was 20.8 (14.5-34.2 [3.7-85.6]) alarms.h−1 (1 alarm every 2.9 min) and increased during induction and emergence of anaesthesia, with up to one alarm per 0.99 min during these periods (p < 0.001). Sixty-four per cent of all alarms were clinically irrelevant, whereas 5% of all alarms required immediate intervention. The positive predictive value of an alarm during induction and emergence was 20% (95% CI 16-24%) and 11% (95% CI 8-14%), respectively. This study shows that peri-operative alarms are frequently irrelevant, with a low predictive value for an emerging event requiring clinical intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]