Cited by 227Healthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsRespiratory Support and Mechanisms

Multicentric study of monitoring alarms in the adult intensive care unit (ICU): a descriptive analysis

Chambrin, M.-C., Ravaux, P., Calvelo-Aros, D., Jaborska, A., Chopin, C., Boniface, B.·1999·Intensive Care Medicine

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s001340051082

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chambrin, M.-C., Ravaux, P., Calvelo-Aros, D., Jaborska, A., Chopin, C., & Boniface, B.
Affiliations
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Université de Lille (FR)
Venue
Intensive Care Medicine
Published
1999-12
Volume
25
Issue
12
Pages
1360-1366
ISSN
  • 0342-4642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-1238
OpenAlex
W1997522188
Cited by
227
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 15
FWCI
3.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Intensive Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Respiratory Support and Mechanisms
Keywords
alarm fatigue, false positive alerts, intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, patient monitoring, alarm response, positive predictive value, pulse oximetry, capnography
MeSH terms
Adult, Electrocardiography, Equipment Failure, False Positive Reactions, Female, France, Hospitals, General, Hospitals, University, Humans, Intensive Care Units, Length of Stay, Male, Middle Aged, Monitoring, Physiologic, Oximetry, Predictive Value of Tests, Prospective Studies, Respiration, Artificial, Sensitivity and Specificity, Severity of Illness Index, Safety Management, Capnography

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review