Audible alarms are a ubiquitous feature of all high-paced, high-risk domains such as aviation and nuclear power where operators control complex systems. In such settings, a missed alarm can have disastrous consequences. It is conventional wisdom that for alarms to be heard, “louder is better,” so that alarm levels in operational environments routinely exceed ambient noise levels. Through a robust experimental paradigm in an anechoic environment to study human response to audible alerting stimuli in a cognitively demanding setting, akin to high-tempo and high-risk domains, clinician participants responded to patient crises while concurrently completing an auditory speech intelligibility and visual vigilance distracting task as the level of alarms were varied as a signal-to-noise ratio above and below hospital background noise. There was little difference in performance on the primary task when the alarm sound was −11 dB below background noise as compared with +4 dB above background noise—a typical real-world situation. Concurrent presentation of the secondary auditory speech intelligibility task significantly degraded performance. Operator performance can be maintained with alarms that are softer than background noise. These findings have widespread implications for the design and implementation of alarms across all high-consequence settings.
Es to detect auditory changes in pulse oximetry were measured before and after perceptual training. Training resulted in a 9% (95% confidence interval, 4%–14%, P = 0.0004, t166 = 3.60) increase in detection accuracy, and a 72-millisecond (95% confidence interval, 40–103 milliseconds, P < 0.0001, t166 = −4.52) speeding of response times in attentionally demanding and noisy conditions that were designed to simulate an operating room. This study illustrates the benefits of multisensory training and sets the stage for further work to better define the role of perceptual training in clinical anesthesiology....
1 February 2017 in Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology
Alongside the development and testing of new audible alarms intended to support International Electrotechnical Commission 60601-1-8, a global standard concerned with alarm safety, the categories of risk that the standard denotes require further thought and possible updating. In this article, we revisit the origins of the categories covered by the standard. These categories were based on the ways that tissue damage can be caused. We consider these categories from the varied professional perspectives of the authors: human factors, semiotics, clinical practice, and the patient or family (layperson). We conclude that while the categories possess many clinically applicable and defensible features from our range of perspectives, the advances in alarm design now available may allow a more flexible approach. We present a three-tier system with superordinate, basic, and subordinate levels that fit both within the thinking embodied in the current standard and possible new developments.
Auditory alarms offer great potential for facilitating human-computer interactions in complex, rapidly changing environments. They are particularly useful in medical settings, where in theory they should afford communication in emergency rooms, operating theatres, and hospitals around the world. Unfortunately, the sounds typically used in these devices are problematic, and researchers have documented numerous shortcomings. Their ubiquity means that even incremental improvements can have significant benefits for patient care. However, solutions have proven challenging for multiple reasons-including issues of backward compatibility inherent in changing any standard. Here we present a series of three experiments showing that manipulations to one specific, understudied property can significantly lower alarm annoyance without harming learning or memory-while preserving an alarm's melodic and rhythmic structure. These results suggest promising new directions for improving the hospital's soundscape, where evidence of problems related to sound are increasingly recognized as affecting medical outcomes as well as physician well-being.