NCT02041858

Brief Summary

Alarm fatigue, a lack of response to an alarm due to desensitization, is a national problem. The problem of alarm desensitization is multifaceted and is related to a high false alarm rate, poor positive predictive value, lack of alarm standardization and the large number of medical devices with built in alarms in use today. Cardiac monitor alarms are intended to notify the healthcare practitioner that a clinical crisis is imminent. However, hundreds of physiologic monitor alarms occur on monitored units each day. As a result, practitioners are highly vulnerable to alarm fatigue which has resulted in serious harm to patients and death due to staff inattention from alarm signal desensitization. Research indicates that 80-99.4% of monitor alarms are false or clinically insignificant. Alarm hazards is the number one medical device technology hazard of 2012 and has been listed by ECRI (Emergency Care Research Institute) among the top 3 medical device hazards for the past three years (ECRI, 2011). Delivering actionable alarm information to care providers is challenging given the significant number of false alarms. Ideally, alarms should activate for events in greatest need of clinical attention without increasing the risk of adverse patient outcomes. This is not the case with current monitoring technology which is designed for high sensitivity and low specificity. Practitioners must use clinical intuition for determining how conservatively alarms should be set to be most useful. There is no research evidence to support how best to set alarms without affecting patient outcomes. Quality improvement studies performed at The Johns Hopkins Hospital have demonstrated that the frequency of alarm signals can be reduced by more than 50% through an altered set of alarm parameters. This reduction in alarm signals has lead to an increase awareness of alarms that do occur as well as create a quieter, healing environment for patients. Although this change was not associated with a "noticeable" increase in adverse patient events, this important outcome was not rigorously studied. The specific aims of this pilot study is to determine if decreasing the number of alarms by using an altered set of alarm parameters has an effect on patient outcomes in an intensive care unit. This project may have a significant impact on patient safety. A decrease in noise at the bedside may result in less distraction to caregivers and may have a positive effect on patient recovery. It is expected that the altered set of monitor default parameters will result in a decrease in audible alarms without increasing clinically significant adverse patient events.

Trial Health

87
On Track

Trial Health Score

Automated assessment based on enrollment pace, timeline, and geographic reach

Enrollment
22

participants targeted

Target at below P25 for not_applicable

Timeline
Completed

Started Apr 2013

Typical duration for not_applicable

Geographic Reach
1 country

1 active site

Status
completed

Health score is calculated from publicly available data and should be used for screening purposes only.

Trial Relationships

Click on a node to explore related trials.

Study Timeline

Key milestones and dates

Study Start

First participant enrolled

April 1, 2013

Completed
1 month until next milestone

Primary Completion

Last participant's last visit for primary outcome

May 1, 2013

Completed
9 months until next milestone

First Submitted

Initial submission to the registry

January 17, 2014

Completed
5 days until next milestone

First Posted

Study publicly available on registry

January 22, 2014

Completed
2.2 years until next milestone

Study Completion

Last participant's last visit for all outcomes

April 1, 2016

Completed
Last Updated

March 6, 2017

Status Verified

March 1, 2017

Enrollment Period

1 month

First QC Date

January 17, 2014

Last Update Submit

March 2, 2017

Conditions

Keywords

AlarmsPhysiologic MonitoringCritical CareAlarm fatigueAdverse Events

Outcome Measures

Primary Outcomes (1)

  • Clinically significant adverse events

    A variety of clinically significant events were assessed while subjects were on the protocol

    1 day

Secondary Outcomes (2)

  • Alarm Signals

    1 day

  • Alarm-triggered interventions

    1 day

Study Arms (2)

Control

NO INTERVENTION

Control arm with organizational-based alarm parameter settings

Altered Alarm Settings

EXPERIMENTAL

Altered set of alarm parameter settings.

Other: Altered Alarm Settings

Interventions

An altered set of alarm parameter settings

Altered Alarm Settings

Eligibility Criteria

Sexall
Healthy VolunteersNo
Age GroupsChild (0-17), Adult (18-64), Older Adult (65+)

Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.

Sponsors & Collaborators

Study Sites (1)

Johns Hopkins Hospital

Baltimore, Maryland, 21287, United States

Location

Related Publications (6)

  • Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: an integrative review. Biomed Instrum Technol. 2012 Jul-Aug;46(4):268-77. doi: 10.2345/0899-8205-46.4.268.

    PMID: 22839984BACKGROUND
  • Lawless ST. Crying wolf: false alarms in a pediatric intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1994 Jun;22(6):981-5.

    PMID: 8205831BACKGROUND
  • Tsien CL, Fackler JC. Poor prognosis for existing monitors in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med. 1997 Apr;25(4):614-9. doi: 10.1097/00003246-199704000-00010.

    PMID: 9142025BACKGROUND
  • Chambrin MC, Ravaux P, Calvelo-Aros D, Jaborska A, Chopin C, Boniface B. Multicentric study of monitoring alarms in the adult intensive care unit (ICU): a descriptive analysis. Intensive Care Med. 1999 Dec;25(12):1360-6. doi: 10.1007/s001340051082.

    PMID: 10660842BACKGROUND
  • Atzema C, Schull MJ, Borgundvaag B, Slaughter GR, Lee CK. ALARMED: adverse events in low-risk patients with chest pain receiving continuous electrocardiographic monitoring in the emergency department. A pilot study. Am J Emerg Med. 2006 Jan;24(1):62-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajem.2005.05.015.

    PMID: 16338512BACKGROUND
  • Siebig S, Kuhls S, Imhoff M, Langgartner J, Reng M, Scholmerich J, Gather U, Wrede CE. Collection of annotated data in a clinical validation study for alarm algorithms in intensive care--a methodologic framework. J Crit Care. 2010 Mar;25(1):128-35. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrc.2008.09.001. Epub 2009 Jan 17.

    PMID: 19327311BACKGROUND

MeSH Terms

Conditions

Alert Fatigue, Health Personnel

Condition Hierarchy (Ancestors)

Mental FatigueFatigueSigns and SymptomsPathological Conditions, Signs and SymptomsBehavioral SymptomsBehavior

Study Officials

  • Julius C Pham, MD, PhD

    Johns Hopkins University

    PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR

Study Design

Study Type
interventional
Phase
not applicable
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Masking
DOUBLE
Who Masked
PARTICIPANT, CARE PROVIDER
Purpose
TREATMENT
Intervention Model
PARALLEL
Sponsor Type
OTHER
Responsible Party
PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
PI Title
Associate Professor

Study Record Dates

First Submitted

January 17, 2014

First Posted

January 22, 2014

Study Start

April 1, 2013

Primary Completion

May 1, 2013

Study Completion

April 1, 2016

Last Updated

March 6, 2017

Record last verified: 2017-03

Locations