Nurses’ reactions to alarms in a neonatal intensive care unit
- 483 Downloads
Neonatal intensive care units (NICUs), like other intensive care units, are intended to provide immediate responses to any change in the patient’s condition. Patient-monitoring alarms and alarms from other medical equipment are very common in these units, and most alarms have no clinical significance. This study addresses the question of how alarms affect nurses’ actions by measuring the occurrence of alarms from different causes in a NICU, recording the nurses’ reactions, and analyzing the relationship between the alarms and the actions. The results show that nurses often do not respond directly to alarms, but, rather, use them as additional sources of information in their ongoing flow of actions. The probabilities for their responding to an alarm depend on the causes of the alarm, its duration, and the characteristics of the patient. These findings support the view that experienced nurses dynamically adjust their activities according to the information they receive from alarm systems and other sources, and that they combine their reactive actions with the periodic performance of routine tasks.
KeywordsIntensive care Alarms Scheduling strategic behavior
This research was partly funded by a grant from the Israel Ministry of Health. We thank Mirit Shomer, Ayelet Yakubovish, Dror Ben-Yakar, and Idit Catz for their help in data collection in the NICU. Parts of this study were presented at the 44th Annual Meeting of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Diego, CA, August 2000.
- Breznitz S (1983) Cry-wolf: the psychology of false alarms. Erlbaum, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- Daniel WW (1999) Biostatistics: a foundation for analysis in the health sciences. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Kragt H, Bonten J (1983) Evaluation of a conventional process alarm system in a fertilizer plant. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern SMC-13:589–600Google Scholar
- Meredith C, Edworthy J (1994) Sources of confusion in intensive therapy unit alarms. In: Stanton N (ed) Human factors in alarm design. Taylor and Francis, London, pp 207–219Google Scholar
- Meyer J, Bitan Y, Shinar D, Zmora E (1999) Scheduling of actions and reliance on warnings in a simulated control task. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 43rd annual meeting, Houston, Texas, September/October 1999. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, California, pp 251–255Google Scholar
- Parasuraman R, Riley V (1997) Humans and automation: use, misuse, disuse, abuse. Hum Factors 39:230–253Google Scholar
- Sabar R, Zmora E (1997) Nurses’ response to alarms from monitoring systems in NICU. Pediatr Res 41:1027Google Scholar
- Seagull FJ, Sanderson PM (1998) Anesthesia alarms in surgical context. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 42nd annual meeting, Chicago, Illinois, October 1998. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 1048–1052Google Scholar
- Sorkin RD (1988) Why are people turning off our alarms? J Acoust Soc Am 84:1107–1108Google Scholar
- Stanton NA, Harrison DJ, Taylor- Burge KL, Porter LJ (2000) Sorting the wheat from the chaff: a study of the detection of alarms. Cogn Technol Work 2:134–141Google Scholar
- Wiklund ME, Hoffman LR (1988) When electronic devices outnumber flower bouquets in the hospital room. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society, 32nd annual meeting, Anaheim, California, October 1988. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Santa Monica, pp 430–434Google Scholar