Cited by 115Healthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPatient Safety and Medication ErrorsElectronic Health Records Systems

Alarm system management: evidence-based guidance encouraging direct measurement of informativeness to improve alarm response

Rayo, Michael F, Moffatt-Bruce, Susan D·2015·BMJ Quality & Safety

Abstract

Although there are powerful incentives for creating alarm management programmes to reduce ‘alarm fatigue’, they do not provide guidance on how to reduce the likelihood that clinicians will disregard critical alarms. The literature cites numerous phenomena that contribute to alarm fatigue, although many of these, including total rate of alarms, are not supported in the literature as factors that directly impact alarm response. The contributor that is most frequently associated with alarm response is informativeness, which is defined as the proportion of total alarms that successfully conveys a specific event, and the extent to which it is a hazard. Informativeness is low across all healthcare applications, consistently ranging from 1% to 20%. Because of its likelihood and strong evidential support, informativeness should be evaluated before other contributors are considered. Methods for measuring informativeness and alarm response are discussed. Design directions for potential interventions, as well as design alternatives to traditional alarms, are also discussed. With the increased attention and investment in alarm system management that alarm interventions are currently receiving, initiatives that focus on informativeness and the other evidence-based measures identified will allow us to more effectively, efficiently and reliably redirect clinician attention, ultimately improving alarm response.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003373

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rayo, M. F., & Moffatt-Bruce, S. D.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
Rayo, Michael F
Venue
BMJ Quality & Safety
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-03-02
Volume
24
Issue
4
Pages
282-286
ISSN
  • 1475-3898 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-5415
  • 2044-5423
OpenAlex
W2096457720
Cited by
115
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 3
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ Quality & Safety (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 › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Electronic Health Records Systems
Keywords
alarm fatigue, alarm system, alarm response, alarm system design, patient safety
MeSH terms
Attention, Attitude of Health Personnel, Equipment Failure, Humans, Monitoring, Physiologic, Nursing Staff, Hospital, Reaction Time, Workload, Safety Management, Clinical Alarms

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