Abstract
Purpose
To examine the perceived urgency of 13 auditory warning alarms commonly occurring in the hospital operating room.
Methods
Undergraduate students, who were naïve with respect to the clinical situation associated with the alarms, judged perceived urgency of each alarm on a ten-point scale.
Results
The perceived urgency of the alarms was not consistent with the actual urgency of the clinical situation that triggers it. In addition, those alarms indicating patient condition were generally perceived as less urgent than those alarms indicating the operation of equipment. Of particular interest were three sets of alarms designed by equipment manufacturers to indicate specific priorities for action. Listeners did not perceive any differences in the urgency of the ‘information only’,‘medium’ and‘high’ priority alarms of“two of the monitors with all judged as low to moderate in urgency. In contrast, the high priority alarm of the third monitor was judged as significantly more urgent than its low and medium urgency counterparts.
Conclusion
The alarms currently in use do not convey the intended sense of urgency to naïve listeners, and this holds even for two sets of alarms designed specifically by manufacturers to convey different levels of urgency.
Résumé
Objectif
Vérifier l’urgence perçue de 13 alarmes sonores utilisées couramment dans les salles d’opération.
Méthode
Des étudiants, novices quant à la situation clinique associée aux alarmes, ont estimé l’urgence perçue de chaque alarme d’après une échelle en dix points.
Résultats
L’urgence des alarmes perçue n’était pas conforme à l’urgence réelle de la situation clinique qui la déclenche. De plus, les alarmes qui indiquent l’état du patient étaient généralement perçues comme moins urgentes que celles qui indiquent le fonctionnement du matériel. On note, en particulier, trois ensembles d’alarmes conçues par des fabricants de matériel pour indiquer des priorités d’action spécifiques. Les auditeurs n’ont perçu aucune différence d’urgence concernant l’alarme pour“l’information seule”, celle d’une priorité“modérée” ou“élevée” de deux des moniteurs, car tous les ont jugé comme une urgence faible ou modérée. Par ailleurs, l’alarme de priorité élevée du troisième moniteur a été jugée comme signifcativement plus urgente que ses homologues de priorité faible et modérée.
Conclusion
Les alarmes couramment utilisées ne transmettent pas le sens de l’urgence souhaité à des auditeurs novices; la situation a été notée pour deux ensembles d’alarmes fabriquées spécifiquement pour indiquer différents niveaux d’urgence.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
McIntyre JWR. Ergonomics: anaesthetists’ use of auditory alarms in the operating room. Int J Clin Monk Comput 1985; 2: 47–55.
Finley GA, Cohen AJ. Perceived urgency and the anaesthetist: responses to common operating room monitor alarms. Can J Anaesth 1991; 38: 958–64.
Edworthy J, Loxley S, Dennis I. Improving auditory warning design: relationship between warning sound parameters and perceived urgency. Human Factors 1991; 33:205–31.
Sorkin, RD. Why are people turning off our alarms? J Acoust Soc Am 1988; 84: 1107–8.
Stanford LM, Mclntyre JWR, Nelson TM, Hogan JT. Affective responses to commercial and experimental auditory alarm signals for anaesthesia delivery and physiological monitoring equipment. Int J Clin Monk Comput 1988; 5: 111–8.
Wringer MB, Englund CE. Ergonomic and human factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating room environment. Anesthesiology 1990; 73: 995–1021.
Burt JL, Bartolome DS, Burdette DW, Comstock JR Jr. A psychophysiological evaluation of the perceived urgency of auditory warning signals. Ergonomics 1995; 38: 2327–40.
Sorkin RD, Kantowitz BH, Kantowitz SC. Likelihood alarm displays. Human Factors 1988; 30: 445–59.
CAN/CSA-ISO 9703.2-97 Anaesthesia and respiratory care alarm signals — Part 2: auditory alarms signals. Can Standards Assoc, 1997.
Patterson RD. CAA Paper 82017. Guidelines for auditory warning systems on civil aircraft. London: UK, Civil Aviation Authority, 1982.
Patterson RD. Auditory warning sounds in the work environment. Phil Trans R Soc Lond 1990; 327: 485–92.
Schneider W. Micro experimental laboratory: an integrated system for IBM PC compatibles. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 1988; 20: 206–17.
Syntrillium Software Corp. (1996). Cool Edit 96. Scottsdale, AZ. http://www.syntrillium.com/
Moore BCJ. An Introduction to the Psychology of Hearing. London: Academic Press; 1991.
Broadbent DE. Perception and Communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1958.
Pashler HE. The Psychology of Attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 1998.
Norman DO. The Design of Everyday Things. New York: Basic Books, 1988.
Moray N. A data base for theories of selective listening.In: Rabbitt PMA, Dornic S. (Eds.). New York: Academic Press; 1974: 119–35.
Cowan N. Attention and Memory. An Integrated Framework. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.
Block FE Jr. Evaluation of users’ abilities to recognize musical alarm tones. J Clin Monit 1992; 8: 28–32.
Morris RW, Montano SR. Response times to visual and auditory alarms during anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care 1996; 24: 682–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by grants from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to the first author. Dr. Finley was a Dalhousie University Clinical Research Scholar at the time of this study.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mondor, T.A., Finley, G.A. The perceived urgency of auditory warning alarms used in the hospital operating room is inappropriate. Can J Anaesth 50, 221–228 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03017788
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03017788