RESUMO
Abstract Background: Alarms alert healthcare professionals of deviations from normal/physiologic status. However, alarm fatigue may occur when their high pitch and diversity overwhelm clinicians, possibly leading to alarms being disabled, paused, and/or ignored. We aimed to determine whether a staff educational program on customizing alarm settings of bedside monitors may decrease inconsistent alarms in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). Methods: This is a prospective, analytic, quantitative, pragmatic, open-label, single-arm study. The outcome was evaluated on PACU admission before (P1) and after (P2) the implementation of the educational program. The heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation alarms were selected for clinical consistency. Results: A total of 260 patients were included and 344 clinical alarms collected, with 270 (78.4%) before (P1), and 74 (21.6%) after (P2) the intervention. Among the 270 alarms in P1, 45.2% were inconsistent (i.e., false alarms), compared to 9.4% of the 74 in P2. Patients with consistent alarms occurred in 30% in the P1 and 27% in the P2 (p = 0.08). Patients with inconsistent alarms occurred in 25.4% in the P1 and in 3.8% in the P2. Ignored consistent alarms were reduced from 21.5% to 2.6% (p = 0.004) in the P2 group. The educational program was a protective factor for the inconsistent clinical alarm (OR = 0.11 [95% CI 0.04-0.3]; p < 0.001) after adjustments for age, gender, and ASA physical status. Conclusion: Customizing alarm settings on PACU admission proved to be a protective factor against inconsistent alarm notifications of multiparametric monitors.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Alarms alert healthcare professionals of deviations from normal/physiologic status. However, alarm fatigue may occur when their high pitch and diversity overwhelm clinicians, possibly leading to alarms being disabled, paused, and/or ignored. We aimed to determine whether a staff educational program on customizing alarm settings of bedside monitors may decrease inconsistent alarms in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). METHODS: This is a prospective, analytic, quantitative, pragmatic, open-label, single-arm study. The outcome was evaluated on PACU admission before (P1) and after (P2) the implementation of the educational program. The heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation alarms were selected for clinical consistency. RESULTS: A total of 260 patients were included and 344 clinical alarms collected, with 270 (78.4%) before (P1), and 74 (21.6%) after (P2) the intervention. Among the 270 alarms in P1, 45.2% were inconsistent (i.e., false alarms), compared to 9.4% of the 74 in P2. Patients with consistent alarms occurred in 30% in the P1 and 27% in the P2 (p = 0.08). Patients with inconsistent alarms occurred in 25.4% in the P1 and in 3.8% in the P2. Ignored consistent alarms were reduced from 21.5% to 2.6% (p = 0.004) in the P2 group. The educational program was a protective factor for the inconsistent clinical alarm (OR = 0.11 [95% CI 0.04-0.3]; p < 0.001) after adjustments for age, gender, and ASA physical status. CONCLUSION: Customizing alarm settings on PACU admission proved to be a protective factor against inconsistent alarm notifications of multiparametric monitors.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) is a grading system routinely adopted worldwide by physicians to classify patients' overall health status. Concerns have been raised surrounding the subjectiveness of this system, potentially leading to poor inter-rater agreement/reliability. We hypothesized that physicians are overconfident when assigning ASA-PS scores and that presenting them with the ASA-PS definitions/examples would improve accuracy. We therefore evaluated participants' accuracy and self-reported confidence on the ASA-PS Classification System (1) while assigning ASA-PS according to their baseline knowledge/judgment; and (2) after a single exposure to the ASA-PS definitions/examples. DESIGN: Prospective before-and-after web-based study. PARTICIPANTS: 272 anesthesiologists and 114 non-anesthesiologists. INTERVENTIONS: Participants voluntarily answered a web-based questionnaire consisting of 10 hypothetical cases. They were asked to assign an ASA-PS score and rate their perceived self-confidence level (20-100%) on the accuracy of their assigned score for each case both (1) before and (2) after reviewing the ASA-PS definitions/examples. The correct ASA-PS for each hypothetical case was determined by consensus among investigators. MEASUREMENTS: Participants' accuracy, self-reported confidence, and calibration of confidence on the application of ASA-PS Classification System. Agreement between measures was tested using kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Anesthesiologists had better accuracy than non-anesthesiologists both on initial [6(5-7) vs. 4(3-5) out of 10; p < 0.001] as well as subsequent [7(6-8) vs. 6(4-7); p < 0.001] ASA-PS score assignments. Participants' self-reported confidence was greater than their accuracy for assigned ASA-PS scores (p < 0.001). ASA-PS agreement between anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologists was poor (κ < 0.20). Participants' accuracy for hypothetical cases of ASA-PS I, II, and III involving adult patients was overall greater than for ASA-PS IV, V, and III (the latter involving a neonate) for both anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologists (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Physicians tend to disagree and be overconfident when assigning ASA-PS scores. A brief consultation of the ASA-PS definitions/examples improves the accuracy for both anesthesiologists and non-anesthesiologists.