Alarm-Related Workload in Default and Modified Alarm Settings and the Relationship Between Alarm Workload, Alarm Response Rate, and Care Provider Experience: Quantification and Comparison Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: Delayed or no response to impending patient safety–related calls, poor care provider experience, low job satisfaction, and adverse events are all unwanted outcomes of alarm fatigue. Nurses often cite increases in alarm-related workload as a reason for alarm fatigue, which is a major contributor to the aforementioned unwanted outcomes. Increased workload affects both the care provider and the patient. No studies to date have evaluated the workload while caring for patients and managing alarms simultaneously and related it to the primary measures of alarm fatigue—alarm response rate and care provider experience. Many studies have assessed the effect of modifying the default alarm setting; however, studies on the perceived workload under different alarm settings are limited. Objective: This study aimed to assess nurses’ or assistants’ perceived workload index of providing care under different clinical alarm settings and establish the relationship between perceived workload, alarm response rate, and care provider experience. Methods: In a clinical simulator, 30 participants responded to alarms that occurred on a physiological monitor under 2 conditions (default and modified) for a given clinical condition. Participants completed a National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Task Load Index questionnaire and rated the demand experienced on a 20-point visual analog scale with low and high ratings. A correlational analysis was performed to assess the relationships between the perceived workload score, alarm response rate, and care provider experience. Results: Participants experienced lower workloads when the clinical alarm threshold limits were modified according to patients’ clinical conditions. The workload index was higher for the default alarm setting (57.60 [SD 2.59]) than for the modified alarm setting (52.39 [SD 2.29]), with a statistically significant difference of 5.21 (95% CI 3.38-7.04), t28=5.838, P<.05. Significant correlations were found between the workload index and alarm response rate. There was a strong negative correlation between alarm response rate and perceived workload, ρ28=−.54, P<.001 with workload explaining 29% of the variation in alarm response rate. There was a moderate negative correlation between the experience reported during patient care and the perceived workload, ρ28=−.49, P<.05. Conclusions: The perceived workload index was comparatively lower with alarm settings modified for individual patient care than in an unmodified default clinical alarm setting. These findings demonstrate that the modification of clinical alarm limits positively affects the number of alarms accurately addressed, care providers’ experience, and overall satisfaction. The findings support the removal of nonessential alarms based on patient conditions, which can help care providers address the remaining alarms accurately and provide better patient care.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».