State accedendo al sito dal Paese Stati Uniti.
Per il vostro Paese (Stati Uniti) è disponibile anche una versione dedicata del sito.

Passare a Stati Uniti
 Soluzioni digitali

Sistema di distribuzione allarmi: per un reparto silenzioso

Infermiera che si copre le orecchie per via dell'allarme

Un problema da non sottovalutare: lo stress da allarmi in terapia intensiva

Il numero medio di allarmi per ogni paziente in terapia intensiva può superare i 700 al giorno. Si stima che una percentuale di questi allarmi compresa fra l'80% e il 95% non sia clinicamente significativa (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. Pubblicato il 13 aprile 2017. doi:10.2196/humanfactors.51102).

L'esposizione a un tale numero di allarmi che non richiedono di intervenire può rappresentare una fonte di stress per il personale sanitario (https://www.ecri.org/Resources/In_the_News/Sound_the_Alarm(PSQH).pdfA). Questa situazione può a sua volta aumentare il rischio di danni ai pazienti e diminuire il livello di soddisfazione sia per i pazienti, sia per il personale medico (https://www.ecri.org/Resources/In_the_News/Sound_the_Alarm(PSQH).pdfA, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK555522/B).

Illustrazione: paziente ventilato. L'allarme viene visualizzato nella postazione in sala infermieri.

Allarmi in pausa per aumentare il silenzio

Se configurato per l'integrazione in un sistema di distribuzione allarmi (DAS) (Disponibile solo per i modelli HAMILTON-C6/G5/S1C), il suono dell'allarme acustico del ventilatore può essere silenziato senza limiti di tempo. Questa funzione è denominata "SILENZIAMENTO globale".

Quando "SILENZIAMENTO globale" è abilitato, gli allarmi del ventilatore vengono trasmessi agli altri dispositivi del sistema di distribuzione allarmi, mentre gli indicatori di allarme visivo sul ventilatore rimangono attivi.

HAMILTON-C6_ASCOM-Silent-ICU_youtube

Zero preoccupazioni: la gestione allarmi con Ascom

La combinazione di Ascom Digistat 7.2 con i ventilatori HAMILTON-G5/S1 e HAMILTON-C6 crea un sistema conforme alle specifiche dei DAS. La gestione di tutti gli allarmi provenienti dai ventilatori HAMILTON‑G5/S1 e HAMILTON‑C6 viene interamente delegata al sistema di gestione allarmi Ascom, garantendo così una gestione degli allarmi affidabile al 100%.

Le notifiche degli allarmi possono essere inviate agli smartphone degli operatori sanitari o visualizzate su schermi o pannelli di comando.

Disponibilità

L'integrazione nei sistemi di distribuzione allarmi è disponibile come opzione sui ventilatori HAMILTON-C6 e 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.