OBJECTIVES: To assess the relevance of current monitoring alarms as a warning system in the adult ICU. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTINGS: Two university hospital, and three general hospital, ICUs. PATIENTS: Hundred thirty-one patients, ventilated at admission, from different shifts (morning, evening, night) combined with different stages of stay, early (0-3 days), intermediate (4-6 days) and late (> 6 days). INTERVENTIONS: Experienced nurses were asked to record the patient's characteristics and, for each alarm event, the reason, type and consequence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The mean age of the patients included was 59.8 +/- 16.4 and SAPS1 was 15.9 +/- 7.4. We recorded 1971 h of care. The shift distribution was 78 mornings, 85 evenings and 83 nights; the stage distribution was 88 early, 78 intermediate and 80 late. There were 3188 alarms, an average of one alarm every 37 min: 23.7% were due to staff manipulation, 17.5% to technical problems and 58.8% to the patients. Alarms originated from ventilators (37.8%), cardiovascular monitors (32.7%), pulse oximeters (14.9%) and capnography (13.5%). Of the alarms, 25.8% had a consequence such as sensor repositioning, suction, modification of the therapy (drug or ventilation). Only 5.9% of the alarms led to a physician's being called. The positive predictive value of an alarm was 27% and its negative predictive value was 99%. The sensitivity was 97% and the specificity 58%. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that the level of monitoring in ICUs generates a great number of false-positive alarms.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the relevance of current monitoring alarms as a warning system in the adult ICU. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTINGS: Two university hospital, and three general hospital, ICUs. PATIENTS: Hundred thirty-one patients, ventilated at admission, from different shifts (morning, evening, night) combined with different stages of stay, early (0-3 days), intermediate (4-6 days) and late (> 6 days). INTERVENTIONS: Experienced nurses were asked to record the patient's characteristics and, for each alarm event, the reason, type and consequence. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The mean age of the patients included was 59.8 +/- 16.4 and SAPS1 was 15.9 +/- 7.4. We recorded 1971 h of care. The shift distribution was 78 mornings, 85 evenings and 83 nights; the stage distribution was 88 early, 78 intermediate and 80 late. There were 3188 alarms, an average of one alarm every 37 min: 23.7% were due to staff manipulation, 17.5% to technical problems and 58.8% to the patients. Alarms originated from ventilators (37.8%), cardiovascular monitors (32.7%), pulse oximeters (14.9%) and capnography (13.5%). Of the alarms, 25.8% had a consequence such as sensor repositioning, suction, modification of the therapy (drug or ventilation). Only 5.9% of the alarms led to a physician's being called. The positive predictive value of an alarm was 27% and its negative predictive value was 99%. The sensitivity was 97% and the specificity 58%. CONCLUSIONS: The study confirms that the level of monitoring in ICUs generates a great number of false-positive alarms.
Authors: Christopher P Bonafide; Richard Lin; Miriam Zander; Christian Sarkis Graham; Christine W Paine; Whitney Rock; Andrew Rich; Kathryn E Roberts; Margaret Fortino; Vinay M Nadkarni; A Russell Localio; Ron Keren Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2015-04-15 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: S Siebig; S Kuhls; U Gather; M Imhoff; T Müller; T Bein; B Trabold; S Bele; C E Wrede Journal: Anaesthesist Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 1.041
Authors: R Scott Evans; Kyle V Johnson; Vrena B Flint; Tupper Kinder; Charles R Lyon; William L Hawley; David K Vawdrey; George E Thomsen Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2005-07-27 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Jonathan S Steinberg; Niraj Varma; Iwona Cygankiewicz; Peter Aziz; Paweł Balsam; Adrian Baranchuk; Daniel J Cantillon; Polychronis Dilaveris; Sergio J Dubner; Nabil El-Sherif; Jaroslaw Krol; Malgorzata Kurpesa; Maria Teresa La Rovere; Suave S Lobodzinski; Emanuela T Locati; Suneet Mittal; Brian Olshansky; Ewa Piotrowicz; Leslie Saxon; Peter H Stone; Larisa Tereshchenko; Mintu P Turakhia; Gioia Turitto; Neil J Wimmer; Richard L Verrier; Wojciech Zareba; Ryszard Piotrowicz Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2017-05 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Joseph M Blankush; Robbie Freeman; Joy McIlvaine; Trung Tran; Stephen Nassani; I Michael Leitman Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2016-10-20 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Gari D Clifford; Ikaro Silva; Benjamin Moody; Qiao Li; Danesh Kella; Abdullah Chahin; Tristan Kooistra; Diane Perry; Roger G Mark Journal: Physiol Meas Date: 2016-07-25 Impact factor: 2.833