For nurses, it’s a constant dash to respond to alarms
By Liz Kowalczyk
Globe Staff / February 13, 2011
E-mail this article To: Invalid E-mail address Add a personal message:(80 character limit) Your E-mail: Invalid E-mail address Sending your articleYour article has been sent.
E-mail|Print|Reprints|Comments (2)Text size – + Logan’s cardiac monitor flashed a red crisis alarm and broadcast a fast, high-pitched beeping, a piercing sound that reached his nurse, Tammy Dillon, in the hallway.
Logan was fine. His pumping legs had triggered the crisis alarm again.
The red alarm is the most urgent, meant to alert nurses to a dangerously slow or fast heart rate, abnormal heart rhythm, or low blood oxygen level. But on this morning in the 42-bed cardiac unit at Children’s Hospital Boston, infants and preschoolers activated red alarms by eating, burping, and cutting and pasting paper for an arts and crafts project.
All morning long, nurses heard — and responded to — constant beeping, dinging, and chiming; some kind of alarm sounded at least every minute.
Nurses know that a large percent of patient monitor alarms are false — triggered by movement, a poor connection, or some other factor — but they still must listen carefully to each one and react quickly in case a patient really requires immediate medical attention. Given the almost overwhelming number of alarms going off, nurses, doctors, and health care leaders are concerned about staff in hospitals across the United States becoming desensitized to the noise, a phenomenon called alarm fatigue.
“Children move a lot, and that creates lots of false alarms,’’ said Dillon, a nurse at Children’s since 1996. But “if you have an alarm that is real, a sick child goes down very fast. You never want to be the person responsible for a delay in care.’’
In the case of Logan Narolis of Williamstown, N.Y. — who had surgery at Children’s for a heart defect — the movement of his legs interrupted the oxygen level signal on his monitor.
Children’s is working with engineers at MIT to develop more sophisticated monitors that better identify true crises, with fewer false alerts.
On another morning at nearby Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, the 10 nurses caring for 35 patients on Clinical Center 7 responded to all manner of warnings — abnormal heart rate alarms, arrhythmia alarms, bed and chair alarms warning that fragile patients might be getting up, patient call bells, intravenous medication pump alarms, and emergency alarms in patient rooms.
Each has its own unique noise, speed, and pitch — the most urgent are, by design, the most annoying — differences barely discernible to visitors but second nature for nurses. The most serious alarms also scroll across signs in hallways or are sent to nurses’ pagers.
Nurse Sylvia LaRocca was caring for a patient whose cardiac monitor blared a low-heart-rate alarm every few minutes — each time pulling LaRocca away from other patients and into the woman’s room. In every instance, the patient was fine, alert, and breathing well. The hospital’s monitors are programmed to set off an alarm when a patient’s heart rate falls below 40 beats per minute. Doctors had lowered the limit on this patient’s monitor to 34, but her slower-than-normal heart, which dipped down to 31, was still triggering the alarm. Now doctors were debating whether to lower the parameters again.
“You have to respond to the alarm, you have to do it,’’ LaRocca said. “But there are some days when you feel you’re just running from alarm to alarm. It can be exasperating.’’
Dr. Julius Yang, medical director for the unit, said it’s a dilemma. Doctors could risk the patient’s safety if they made her monitor less sensitive, but if they don’t, they run the risk of desensitizing the nurses.
“I worry about alarm fatigue quite a bit,’’ he said. “The problem is, when is real real?’’
For nurses, it’s a constant dash to respond to alarms - The Boston Globe
-
No comments:
Post a Comment