Alarms in a neurocritical care unit: a prospective study.

The contemporary practice of monitoring physiologic parameters in the critical care setting is based on alarm systems with high sensitivity but low specificity. A natural consequence of this approach is a massive amount of alarms, which potentially leads to fatigue in the personnel and negatively impacts the quality of care provided. The study objective is to determine the prevalence, types, and determinants of alarms in a neurological critical care unit (NCCU) prototype. During a one-month period corresponding to 272 days of monitoring in 34 patients, nursing staff recorded the type and number of sounding alarms in a university NCCU. Alarms were categorized into three types as type-A alarms that were merely handled by the nursing staff, type-B alarms that were primarily managed by nurses, but the physician was also notified, and type-C alarms that were principally handled by NCCU physicians. There were a total of 9439 alarms, with an average of daily 34.7 alarms per bed, corresponding to one alarm every 41.4 min. Most of the alarms were type-A (57.7%), followed by type-B (39.2%) and type-C (3.1%) alarms. Alarms originated from electrocardiogram (34.6%), pulse oximeter (33.7%), noninvasive blood pressure monitoring (9.8%), respiratory monitoring (9.7%), intravenous fluid pumps (4.5%), ventilator (3.9%), enteral pumps (2.1%) and invasive blood pressure systems (1.7%). A noticeable diurnal variation was observed for type-A pulse oximeter, type-A and -B ECG alarms (increase during morning shifts), and type-A ventilator alarms (decrease during morning shifts). Alarms are highly prevalent in NCCUs and can correspond to an important portion of the workload.

Non-expert use of quantitative EEG displays for seizure identification in the adult neuro-intensive care unit.

Video-EEG monitoring is the ultimate way to diagnose non-convulsive status epilepticus (NCSE) in intensive care units (ICU). Usually EEG recordings are evaluated once a day by an electrophysiologist, which may lead to delay in diagnosis. Digital EEG trend analysis methods like amplitude integrated EEG (aEEG) and density spectral array (DSA) have been developed to facilitate recognition of seizures. In this study, we aimed to investigate the diagnostic utility of these methods by non-expert physicians and ICU nurses for NCSE identification in an adult neurological ICU. Ten patients with NCSE and ten control patients without seizures were included in the study. The raw EEG recordings of all subjects were converted to both aEEG and DSA and displayed simultaneously without conventional EEG. After training for seizure recognition with both methods, two physicians and two nurses analyzed the visual displays individually, and marked seizure timings. Their results were compared with those of a study epileptologist. Participants analyzed 615h of EEG data with 700 seizures. Overall, 63% of the seizures were recognized by all, 15.6% by three, 11.6% by two, 8.3% by one rater and only 1.5% were missed by all of them (sensitivity was 88-99%, and specificity was 89-95% when the ratings were assessed as 1-h epochs). False positive rates were 1 per 2h in the study and 1 per 6h in the control groups. Interrater agreement was high (κ=0.79-0.81). Bilateral independent seizures and ictal recordings with lower amplitude and shorter duration were more likely to be missed. There was no difference in performance between the rating of physicians and nurses. Our study demonstrates that bedside nurses, ICU fellows and residents can achieve acceptable level of accuracy for seizure identification using the digital EEG trend analysis methods following brief training. This may help earlier notification of the electrophysiologist who is not always available in ICUs.