This Article Résumé de cet Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Submit a scholarly reply Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Mondor, T. A. Articles by Finley, G. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Mondor, T. A. Articles by Finley, G. A.

The perceived urgency of auditory warning alarms used in the hospital operating room is inappropriate

[Caractère inapproprié de l’urgence perçue des alarmes sonores utilisées dans les salles d’opération d’hôpitaux]

Todd A. Mondor, PhD^* and G. Allen Finley, MD, FRCPC

^* From the Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, and
the Department of Anesthesiology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Address correspondence to: Dr. Todd Mondor, Department of Psychology, P429 Duff Roblin Bldg., University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba R3T 2N2, Canada. Phone: 204-474-7837; Fax: 204-474-7599; E-mail: todd_mondor{at}umanitoba.ca

Purpose: To examine the perceived urgency of 13 auditory warning alarms commonly occurring in the hospital operating room.

Methods: Undergraduate students, who were naïve with respect to the clinical situation associated with the alarms, judged perceived urgency of each alarm on a ten-point scale.

Results: The perceived urgency of the alarms was not consistent with the actual urgency of the clinical situation that triggers it. In addition, those alarms indicating patient condition were generally perceived as less urgent than those alarms indicating the operation of equipment. Of particular interest were three sets of alarms designed by equipment manufacturers to indicate specific priorities for action. Listeners did not perceive any differences in the urgency of the ‘information only’, ‘medium’ and ‘high’ priority alarms of two of the monitors with all judged as low to moderate in urgency. In contrast, the high priority alarm of the third monitor was judged as significantly more urgent than its low and medium urgency counterparts.

Conclusion: The alarms currently in use do not convey the intended sense of urgency to naïve listeners, and this holds even for two sets of alarms designed specifically by manufacturers to convey different levels of urgency.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. M. Korniewicz, T. Clark, and Y. David A National Online Survey on the Effectiveness of Clinical Alarms Am. J. Crit. Care., January 1, 2008; 17(1): 36 - 41. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]