Abstract
Increasing numbers and varieties of electronic monitors are used in hospital operating rooms. Many of these are equipped with auditory alarms which are loud, insistent, or irritating, and thus are frequently disabled by the anaesthetist. This study was planned to evaluate two components of auditory alarm design which may influence the usefulness of the alarm: the perceived urgency of the auditory signal and its correlation with the urgency of the corresponding clinical situation. We also assessed the ability of practising anaesthetists to identify the monitor or condition responsible for the alarm. Sixty-four anaesthetists attending a national conference assessed ten common operating room alarm sounds for perceived urgency. Results were compared with the urgency of the corresponding clinical situation as determined by 12 senior anaesthetists. Discrepancies between the clinical and perceived urgencies of several monitor alarms were found, and there was no correlation between the two measures. The subjects were also tested for their ability to identify the alarm sounds correctly. The overall correct identification rate was 33%, and only two monitors were correctly identified by more than 50% of the subjects. The results of this study have implications for design and use of auditory alarms in hospitals and suggest the need for further research.
Résumé
On utilise de plus en plus divers moniteurs électroniques en salle d’opération. Plusieurs d’entre eux sont pourvus d’alarmes sonores puissantes, persistantes ou ennuyeuses si bien, que l’anesthésiste les mets souvent hors fonction. Nous avons évalué deux aspects de ces alarmes qui peuvent influencer leur utilité soil: l’urgence perçue à l’écoute de l’alarme et sa corrélation avec le degré d’urgence de la situation clinique correspondante. Nous avons aussi demandé aux anesthésistes d’identifier le moniteur ou le probleme à la source de l’alarme sonore. Soixantequatre anesthésistes en congrès se sont prêtés à notre étude et douze anesthésistes seniors ont agi comme arbitre du degré d’urgence clinique. Nous n’avons trouvé aucune corrélation entre le degré d’urgence de l’alarme tel que perçu par les anesthésistes et l’urgence « vraie » du problème clinique. De plus, les anesthésistes n’identifiaient l’alarme en cause que dans 33% des cas et le taux de reconnaissance ne dépassait 50% que pour deux moniteurs. Cette étude devrait être prise en considération dans le développement et l’utilisation des alarmes sonores à l’hôpital.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sorkin RD, Woods DD. Systems with human monitors: a signal detection analysis. Human-Computer Interaction 1985; 1: 49–75.
McIntyre JWR. Ergonomics: anaesthetists’ use of auditory alarms in the operating room. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1985; 2: 47–55.
Sorkin RD. Why are people turning off our alarms? J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84: 1107–8.
Kestin IG, Miller BR, Lockhart CH. Auditory alarms during anesthesia monitoring. Anesthesiology 1988; 69: 106–9.
Seigel S. Non-parametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, 1956; 55.
SPSS-X User’s Guide, 3rd Ed. SPSS Inc. Chicago, 1988; 738.
Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ. Biometry — The Principles and Practice of Statistics in Biological Research. W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1969; 533.
Patterson RD, Edworthy J, Shailer MJ, Lower MC, Wheeler PD. Alarm sounds for medical equipment in intensive care areas and operating theatres. Institute of Sound and Vibration Research Report AC598, University of Southampton, 1986.
Hellier E, Edworthy J. Quantifying the perceived urgency of auditory warnings. Canadian Acoustics 1989; 17: 3–11.
Momtahan KL. Mapping of psychoacoustic parameters to the perceived urgency of auditory warning signals. M.A. Thesis (Psychology), Carleton University, 1990.
Momtahan KL, Tansley BW. An ergonomic analysis of the auditory alarm signals in the operating room and recovery room. Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Canadian Acoustical Association, Halifax, October 18, 1989; 140.
Patterson RD, Milroy R. Auditory warnings on civil aircraft: the learning and retention of warnings. Civil Aviation Authority Paper 7D/S/0142, London, 1980.
Continuous flow inhalation anaesthetic apparatus (anaesthetic machines) for medical use. CSA Standard Z168.3-M1980, clause 14.2.2. Canadian Standards Association, Rexdale, Ontario; 1980.
Loeb RC, Jones BR, Behrman KH, Leonard RJ. Anesthetists cannot identify audible alarms. Anesthesiology 1990; 73: A539.
Stanford LM, McIntyre JWR, Nelson TM, Hogan JT. Affective responses to commercial and experimental auditory alarm signals for anaesthesia delivery and physiological monitoring equipment. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1988; 5: 111–8.
Schreiber PJ, Schreiber J. Structured alarm systems for the operating room. J Clin Monit 1989; 5: 201–4.
Specification for alarm signals used in anaesthesia and critical care. ISO/TC 121/SC 3 N687. International Standards Organization, Helsinki, 1987.
Specifications for alarm signals in medical equipment used in anesthesia and respiratory care (draft). American Society for Testing and Materials (Subcommittee F29.03.04 — Harmonization of Alarms), Philadelphia, 1991.
Gaver WW. Auditory icons: using sound in computer interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction 1986; 2: 167–77.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Finley, G.A., Cohen, A.J. Perceived urgency and the anaesthetist: responses to common operating room monitor alarms. Can J Anaesth 38, 958–964 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03008611
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03008611