Detecting Abnormalities on Displays of Patient Information

Fleishman, Sydney; Hess, Alexis; Sloan, Larry; Schlesinger, Joseph J.; Shive, Joshua

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-74611-7_40

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Burdick et al demonstrated a higher accuracy of alarm identification with the use of multisensory (auditory, vibrotactile, and visual) alarms, compared to conventional [11]. Fleishman et al 2021 demonstrated that critical alert detection was faster with a multisensory (visual and auditory) alarm, compared to unisensory [13]. Both studies suggest that multisensory alarm systems had the potential to reduce the auditory burden associated with auditory alarms, as well as allow medical personnel to identify events more accurately and more rapidly when multiple, cognitively demanding sensory stimuli were present.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Multisensory alarm to benefit alarm identification and decrease workload: a feasibility study

Rios

Katzman

Burdick³

et al. 2023

J Clin Monit Comput

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The poor design of conventional auditory medical alarms has contributed to alarm desensitization, and eventually, alarm fatigue in medical personnel. This study tested a novel multisensory alarm system which aims to help medical personnel better interpret and respond to alarm annunciation during periods of high cognitive load such as those found within intensive care units. We tested a multisensory alarm that combined auditory and vibrotactile cues to convey alarm type, alarm priority, and patient identity. Testing was done in three phases: control (conventional auditory), Half (limited multisensory alarm), and Full (complete multisensory alarm). Participants (N = 19, undergraduates) identified alarm type, priority, and patient identity (patient 1 or 2) using conventional and multisensory alarms, while simultaneously completing a cognitively demanding task. Performance was based on reaction time (RT) and identification accuracy of alarm type and priority. Participants also reported their perceived workload. RT was significantly faster for the Control phase (p < 0.05). Participant performance in identifying alarm type, priority, and patient did not differ significantly between the three phase conditions (p = 0.87, 0.37, and 0.14 respectively). The Half multisensory phase produced the lowest mental demand, temporal demand, and overall perceived workload score. These data suggest that implementation of a multisensory alarm with alarm and patient information may decrease perceived workload without significant changes in alarm identification performance. Additionally, a ceiling effect may exist for multisensory stimuli, with only part of an alarm benefitting from multisensory integration.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%