Purpose The noise levels in intensive care units have been repeatedly reported to exceed the recommended guidelines and yield negative health outcomes among healthcare professionals. However, it is unclear which sound sources within this environment are perceived as disturbing. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate how healthcare professionals in Germany, Switzerland, and Austria perceive the sound levels and the associated sound sources within their work environment and explore sound reduction strategies. Material and methods An online survey was conducted among 350 healthcare professionals working in intensive care units. The survey consisted of items on demographic and hospital data and questions about the perception of the sound levels [1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree)], disturbance from sound sources [1 (not disturbing at all) to 5 (very disturbing)], and implementation potential, feasibility, and motivation to reduce sound reduction measures [1 (not high at all) to 5 (very high)]. Results Approximately 69.3% of the healthcare professionals perceived the sound levels in the ICUs as too high. Short-lasting human sounds (e.g. moans or laughs) [mean (M) ± standard deviation (SD) = 3.30 ± 0.81], devices and alarms (M ± SD = 2.67 ± 0.59), and short-lasting object sounds (M ± SD = 2.55 ± 0.68) were perceived as the most disturbing sounds. Reducing medical equipment alarms was considered to have greater implementation potential [M ± SD = 3.62 ± 0.92, t(334) = -7.30, p < 0.001], feasibility [M ± SD = 3.19 ± 0.93, t(334) = -11.02, p < 0.001], and motivation [M ± SD = 3.85 ± 0.89, t(334) = -10.10, p < 0.001] for reducing the sound levels. Conclusion This study showed that healthcare professionals perceive short-lasting human sounds as most disturbing and rated reducing medical equipment alarms as the best approach to reduce the sound levels in terms of potential, feasibility, and motivation for implementation.

BackgroundExposure to elevated sound pressure levels within the intensive care unit is known to negatively affect patient and staff health. In the past, interventions to address this problem have been unsuccessful as there is no conclusive evidence on the severity of each sound source and their role on the overall sound pressure levels. Therefore, the goal of the study was to perform a continuous 1 week recording to characterize the sound pressure levels and identify negative sound sources in this setting.MethodsIn this prospective, systematic, and quantitative observational study, the sound pressure levels and sound sources were continuously recorded in a mixed medical–surgical intensive care unit over 1 week. Measurements were conducted using four sound level meters and a human observer present in the room noting all sound sources arising from two beds.ResultsThe mean 8 h sound pressure level was significantly higher during the day (52.01 ± 1.75 dBA) and evening (50.92 ± 1.66 dBA) shifts than during the night shift (47.57 ± 2.23; F(2, 19) = 11.80, p &lt; 0.001). No significant difference was found in the maximum and minimum mean 8 h sound pressure levels between the work shifts. However, there was a significant difference between the two beds in the based on location during the day (F(3, 28) = 3.91, p = 0.0189) and evening (F(3, 24) = 5.66, p = 0.00445) shifts. Cleaning of the patient area, admission and discharge activities, and renal interventions (e.g., dialysis) contributed the most to the overall sound pressure levels, with staff talking occurring most frequently.ConclusionOur study was able to identify that continuous maintenance of the patient area, patient admission and discharge, and renal interventions were responsible for the greatest contribution to the sound pressure levels. Moreover, while staff talking was not found to significantly contribute to the sound pressure levels, it was found to be the most frequently occurring activity which may indirectly influence patient wellbeing. Overall, identifying these sound sources can have a meaningful impact on patients and staff by identifying targets for future interventions, thus leading to a healthier environment.