Responding to clinical alarms in unfolding simulated clinical scenarios: auditory icons perform better than tonal alarms.

IF 9.1 1区医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY

British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-03-20 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2024.12.047

Judy Reed Edworthy, Natasha Talbot, Nicole Martin

{"title":"Responding to clinical alarms in unfolding simulated clinical scenarios: auditory icons perform better than tonal alarms.","authors":"Judy Reed Edworthy, Natasha Talbot, Nicole Martin","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.12.047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The international medical device safety standard IEC 60601-1-8 now recommends use of auditory icon alarms. Auditory icon alarms are alarms that act as metaphors for the problems that they signal. These are compared with traditional tonal alarms.Methods: Two sets of three auditory alarms were compared, one consisting of auditory icons and one consisting of variants of older tonal alarms. Volunteer participants were required to monitor three clinical scenarios each lasting 4 min with different problems (cardiac, oxygenation, and technical) occurring during each of these scenarios that triggered alarms multiple times. Participants were required to respond to those alarms while performing a separate vigilance task. Participants were taught the alarms before the tasks, learning the alarms either by the name of the problem (Hazard) or the position of the alarms in the sequence of events (Sequence).Results: Participants responded more accurately (F=23.48, P<0.05, eta2=0.32) and more quickly (F=20.357, P<0.001, eta2=0.51) to auditory icon alarms than to tonal alarms. This higher performance was not at the expense of performance on the vigilance task. The results showed no effect of learning the sounds as Hazards or as a Sequence.Conclusions: Auditory icons are more effective than tonal alarms. New alarms as indicated by the standard should be adopted by manufacturers wherever possible.","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.12.047","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The international medical device safety standard IEC 60601-1-8 now recommends use of auditory icon alarms. Auditory icon alarms are alarms that act as metaphors for the problems that they signal. These are compared with traditional tonal alarms.

Methods: Two sets of three auditory alarms were compared, one consisting of auditory icons and one consisting of variants of older tonal alarms. Volunteer participants were required to monitor three clinical scenarios each lasting 4 min with different problems (cardiac, oxygenation, and technical) occurring during each of these scenarios that triggered alarms multiple times. Participants were required to respond to those alarms while performing a separate vigilance task. Participants were taught the alarms before the tasks, learning the alarms either by the name of the problem (Hazard) or the position of the alarms in the sequence of events (Sequence).

Results: Participants responded more accurately (F=23.48, P<0.05, eta²=0.32) and more quickly (F=20.357, P<0.001, eta²=0.51) to auditory icon alarms than to tonal alarms. This higher performance was not at the expense of performance on the vigilance task. The results showed no effect of learning the sounds as Hazards or as a Sequence.

Conclusions: Auditory icons are more effective than tonal alarms. New alarms as indicated by the standard should be adopted by manufacturers wherever possible.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

British journal of anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学

CiteScore

13.50

自引率

7.10%

发文量

488

审稿时长

27 days

期刊介绍： The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.