ABSTRACT
Abstract Background: Alarms alert healthcare professionals of deviations from normal/physiologic status. However, alarm fatigue may occur when their high pitch and diversity overwhelm clinicians, possibly leading to alarms being disabled, paused, and/or ignored. We aimed to determine whether a staff educational program on customizing alarm settings of bedside monitors may decrease inconsistent alarms in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). Methods: This is a prospective, analytic, quantitative, pragmatic, open-label, single-arm study. The outcome was evaluated on PACU admission before (P1) and after (P2) the implementation of the educational program. The heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation alarms were selected for clinical consistency. Results: A total of 260 patients were included and 344 clinical alarms collected, with 270 (78.4%) before (P1), and 74 (21.6%) after (P2) the intervention. Among the 270 alarms in P1, 45.2% were inconsistent (i.e., false alarms), compared to 9.4% of the 74 in P2. Patients with consistent alarms occurred in 30% in the P1 and 27% in the P2 (p = 0.08). Patients with inconsistent alarms occurred in 25.4% in the P1 and in 3.8% in the P2. Ignored consistent alarms were reduced from 21.5% to 2.6% (p = 0.004) in the P2 group. The educational program was a protective factor for the inconsistent clinical alarm (OR = 0.11 [95% CI 0.04-0.3]; p < 0.001) after adjustments for age, gender, and ASA physical status. Conclusion: Customizing alarm settings on PACU admission proved to be a protective factor against inconsistent alarm notifications of multiparametric monitors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Alarms alert healthcare professionals of deviations from normal/physiologic status. However, alarm fatigue may occur when their high pitch and diversity overwhelm clinicians, possibly leading to alarms being disabled, paused, and/or ignored. We aimed to determine whether a staff educational program on customizing alarm settings of bedside monitors may decrease inconsistent alarms in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU). METHODS: This is a prospective, analytic, quantitative, pragmatic, open-label, single-arm study. The outcome was evaluated on PACU admission before (P1) and after (P2) the implementation of the educational program. The heart rate, blood pressure, and oxygen saturation alarms were selected for clinical consistency. RESULTS: A total of 260 patients were included and 344 clinical alarms collected, with 270 (78.4%) before (P1), and 74 (21.6%) after (P2) the intervention. Among the 270 alarms in P1, 45.2% were inconsistent (i.e., false alarms), compared to 9.4% of the 74 in P2. Patients with consistent alarms occurred in 30% in the P1 and 27% in the P2 (p = 0.08). Patients with inconsistent alarms occurred in 25.4% in the P1 and in 3.8% in the P2. Ignored consistent alarms were reduced from 21.5% to 2.6% (p = 0.004) in the P2 group. The educational program was a protective factor for the inconsistent clinical alarm (OR = 0.11 [95% CI 0.04-0.3]; p < 0.001) after adjustments for age, gender, and ASA physical status. CONCLUSION: Customizing alarm settings on PACU admission proved to be a protective factor against inconsistent alarm notifications of multiparametric monitors.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of perioperative morbimortality. Despite significant efforts to advance evidence-based practice, prevention rates remain inadequate in many centres. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies aimed at improving adherence to adequate VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients at high risk of VTE. METHOD: Before and after intervention study conducted at a tertiary hospital. Adherence to adequate VTE prophylaxis was compared according to three strategies consecutively implemented from January 2019 to December 2020. A dedicated hospitalist physician alone (strategy A) or in conjunction with a nurse (strategy B) overlooked the postoperative period to ensure adherence and correct inadequacies. Finally, a multidisciplinary team approach (strategy C) focused on promoting adequate VTE prophylaxis across multiple stages of care-from the operating room (ie, preoperative team-based checklist) to collaboration with clinical pharmacists in the postoperative period-was implemented. RESULTS: We analysed 2074 surgical patients: 783 from January to June 2019 (strategy A), 669 from July 2019 to May 2020 (strategy B), and 622 from June to December 2020 (strategy C). VTE prophylaxis adherence rates for strategies (A), (B) and (C) were (median (25th-75th percentile)) 43.29% (31.82-51.69), 50% (42.57-55.80) and 92.31% (91.38-93.51), respectively (p<0.001; C>A=B). There was a significant reduction in non-compliance on all analysed criteria (risk stratification (A (25.5%), B (22%), C (6%)), medical documentation (A (68%), B (55.2%) C (9%)) and medical prescription (A (51.85%), B (48%), C (6.10%)) after implementation of strategy C (p<0.05). Additionally, a significant increase in compliance with adequate dosage, dosing interval and scheduling of the prophylactic regimen was observed. CONCLUSION: Perioperative VTE prophylaxis strategies that relied exclusively on physicians and/or nurses were associated with suboptimal execution and prevention. A multidisciplinary team-based approach that covers multiple stages of patient care significantly increased adherence to adequate VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients at high risk of developing perioperative VTE.