MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400863220 · doi:10.2196/58347

Alarm Management in Provisional COVID-19 Intensive Care Units: Retrospective Analysis and Recommendations for Future Pandemics

2024· article· en· W4400863220 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Maximilian Markus Wunderlich, Nicolas Frey, Sandro Amende-Wolf, Carl Hinrichs, Felix Balzer, Akira-Sebastian Poncette

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Medical emergencyMedicineIntensive careIntensive care medicineVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In response to the high patient admission rates during the COVID-19 pandemic, provisional intensive care units (ICUs) were set up, equipped with temporary monitoring and alarm systems. We sought to find out whether the provisional ICU setting led to a higher alarm burden and more staff with alarm fatigue. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare alarm situations between provisional COVID-19 ICUs and non-COVID-19 ICUs during the second COVID-19 wave in Berlin, Germany. The study focused on measuring alarms per bed per day, identifying medical devices with higher alarm frequencies in COVID-19 settings, evaluating the median duration of alarms in both types of ICUs, and assessing the level of alarm fatigue experienced by health care staff. METHODS: Our approach involved a comparative analysis of alarm data from 2 provisional COVID-19 ICUs and 2 standard non-COVID-19 ICUs. Through interviews with medical experts, we formulated hypotheses about potential differences in alarm load, alarm duration, alarm types, and staff alarm fatigue between the 2 ICU types. We analyzed alarm log data from the patient monitoring systems of all 4 ICUs to inferentially assess the differences. In addition, we assessed staff alarm fatigue with a questionnaire, aiming to comprehensively understand the impact of the alarm situation on health care personnel. RESULTS: COVID-19 ICUs had significantly more alarms per bed per day than non-COVID-19 ICUs (P<.001), and the majority of the staff lacked experience with the alarm system. The overall median alarm duration was similar in both ICU types. We found no COVID-19-specific alarm patterns. The alarm fatigue questionnaire results suggest that staff in both types of ICUs experienced alarm fatigue. However, physicians and nurses who were working in COVID-19 ICUs reported a significantly higher level of alarm fatigue (P=.04). CONCLUSIONS: Staff in COVID-19 ICUs were exposed to a higher alarm load, and the majority lacked experience with alarm management and the alarm system. We recommend training and educating ICU staff in alarm management, emphasizing the importance of alarm management training as part of the preparations for future pandemics. However, the limitations of our study design and the specific pandemic conditions warrant further studies to confirm these findings and to explore effective alarm management strategies in different ICU settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.593
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.361 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringFrench-language works237,207