Hemos detectado que visita nuestro sitio web desde Estados Unidos.
Disponemos de una versión específica del sitio web para su país (Estados Unidos).

Cambiar a Estados Unidos
 Soluciones digitales

Sistemas de alarmas distribuidas. Para una UCI silenciosa

Enfermera tapándose los oídos por la alarma

La lucha es real. Fatiga por alarmas en la UCI

El promedio de alarmas por paciente de la UCI puede superar las 700 al día. Se estima que entre el 80 y el 95 % de estas alarmas no son clínicamente significativas (Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2012;46(4):268-277. doi:10.2345/0899-8205-46.4.2681, McBride DL, LeVasseur SA. Personal Communication Device Use by Nurses Providing In-Patient Care: Survey of Prevalence, Patterns, and Distraction Potential. JMIR Hum Factors. 2017;4(2):e10. Published 2017 Apr 13. doi:10.2196/humanfactors.51102).

La exposición a un número tan elevado de alarmas no procesables puede provocar fatiga por alarmas en los cuidadores (https://www.ecri.org/Resources/In_the_News/Sound_the_Alarm(PSQH).pdfA). Esto puede aumentar el riesgo de daños en los pacientes y la insatisfacción entre los pacientes y el personal médico (https://www.ecri.org/Resources/In_the_News/Sound_the_Alarm(PSQH).pdfA, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555522/B).

Ilustración: paciente que recibe ventilación. La alarma se muestra en la estación del personal de enfermería.

Apague el sonido. Reina el silencio

Cuando se configura como parte de un sistema de alarmas distribuidas (DAS) (Solo disponible para HAMILTON-C6/G5/S1C), la alarma acústica del respirador se puede detener durante un periodo de tiempo ilimitado. La función se denomina APAGADO DE SONIDO global.

Cuando APAGADO DE SONIDO global está activado, las alarmas del respirador se transmiten a otros dispositivos del DAS, mientras que los indicadores visuales de alarma del respirador permanecen activos.

HAMILTON-C6_ASCOM-Silent-ICU_youtube

Sin sobresaltos. Gestión de alarmas con Ascom

La combinación de Ascom Digistat 7.2 con los respiradores HAMILTON‑G5/S1 y HAMILTON‑C6 permite contar con un sistema compatible con sistemas de alarmas distribuidas (DAS). El sistema de gestión de alarmas Ascom se encarga por completo de todas las alarmas procedentes de los respiradores HAMILTON‑G5/S1 y HAMILTON‑C6, lo que garantiza una gestión de alarmas totalmente fiable.

Los avisos de alarma se pueden enviar al teléfono móvil de los profesionales sanitarios o mostrarse en escritorios o paneles.

Disponibilidad

La integración del sistema de alarmas distribuidas está disponible de manera opcional en los respiradores HAMILTON-C6 y HAMILTON-G5/S1.

Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review.

Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2012;46(4):268-277. doi:10.2345/0899-8205-46.4.268

Alarm fatigue is a national problem and the number one medical device technology hazard in 2012. The problem of alarm desensitization is multifaceted and related to a high false alarm rate, poor positive predictive value, lack of alarm standardization, and the number of alarming medical devices in hospitals today. This integrative review synthesizes research and non-research findings published between 1/1/2000 and 10/1/2011 using The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice model. Seventy-two articles were included. Research evidence was organized into five main themes: excessive alarms and effects on staff; nurse's response to alarms; alarm sounds and audibility; technology to reduce false alarms; and alarm notification systems. Non-research evidence was divided into two main themes: strategies to reduce alarm desensitization, and alarm priority and notification systems. Evidence-based practice recommendations and gaps in research are summarized.

Personal Communication Device Use by Nurses Providing In-Patient Care: Survey of Prevalence, Patterns, and Distraction Potential.

McBride DL, LeVasseur SA. Personal Communication Device Use by Nurses Providing In-Patient Care: Survey of Prevalence, Patterns, and Distraction Potential. JMIR Hum Factors. 2017;4(2):e10. Published 2017 Apr 13. doi:10.2196/humanfactors.5110



BACKGROUND

Coincident with the proliferation of employer-provided mobile communication devices, personal communication devices, including basic and enhanced mobile phones (smartphones) and tablet computers that are owned by the user, have become ubiquitous among registered nurses working in hospitals. While there are numerous benefits of personal communication device use by nurses at work, little is known about the impact of these devices on in-patient care.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to examine how hospital-registered nurses use their personal communication devices while doing both work-related and non‒work-related activities and to assess the impact of these devices on in-patient care.

METHODS

A previously validated survey was emailed to 14,797 members of two national nursing organizations. Participants were asked about personal communication device use and their opinions about the impact of these devices on their own and their colleagues' work.

RESULTS

Of the 1268 respondents (8.57% response rate), only 5.65% (70/1237) never used their personal communication device at work (excluding lunch and breaks). Respondents self-reported using their personal communication devices at work for work-related activities including checking or sending text messages or emails to health care team members (29.02%, 363/1251), as a calculator (25.34%, 316/1247), and to access work-related medical information (20.13%, 251/1247). Fewer nurses reported using their devices for non‒work-related activities including checking or sending text messages or emails to friends and family (18.75%, 235/1253), shopping (5.14%, 64/1244), or playing games (2.73%, 34/1249). A minority of respondents believe that their personal device use at work had a positive effect on their work including reducing stress (29.88%, 369/1235), benefiting patient care (28.74%, 357/1242), improving coordination of patient care among the health care team (25.34%, 315/1243), or increasing unit teamwork (17.70%, 220/1243). A majority (69.06%, 848/1228) of respondents believe that on average personal communication devices have a more negative than positive impact on patient care and 39.07% (481/1231) reported that personal communication devices were always or often a distraction while working. Respondents acknowledged their own device use negatively affected their work performance (7.56%, 94/1243), or caused them to miss important clinical information (3.83%, 47/1225) or make a medical error (0.90%, 11/1218). Respondents reported witnessing another nurse's use of devices negatively affect their work performance (69.41%, 860/1239), or cause them to miss important clinical information (30.61%, 378/1235) or make a medical error (12.51%, 155/1239). Younger respondents reported greater device use while at work than older respondents and generally had more positive opinions about the impact of personal communication devices on their work.

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of registered nurses believe that the use of personal communication devices on hospital units raises significant safety issues. The high rate of respondents who saw colleagues distracted by their devices compared to the rate who acknowledged their own distraction may be an indication that nurses are unaware of their own attention deficits while using their devices. There were clear generational differences in personal communication device use at work and opinions about the impact of these devices on patient care. Professional codes of conduct for personal communication device use by hospital nurses need to be developed that maximize the benefits of personal communication device use, while reducing the potential for distraction and adverse outcomes.