Browsing by Subject "emergency medicine"

Sort by: Order: Results:

Now showing items 1-2 of 2
  • Jamsa, JO; Uutela, KH; Tapper, AM; Lehtonen, L (2021)
    Background Alarm fatigue is hypothesized to be caused by vast amount of patient monitor alarms. Objectives were to study the frequency and types of patient monitor alarms, to evaluate alarm fatigue, and to find unit specific alarm threshold values in a university hospital emergency department. Methods We retrospectively gathered alarm data from 9 September to 6 October 2019, in Jorvi Hospital Emergency department, Finland. The department treats surgical, internal and general medicine patients aged 16 and older. The number of patients is on average 4600 to 5000 per month. Eight out of 46 monitors were used for data gathering and the monitored modalities included electrocardiography, respiratory rate, blood pressure, and pulse oximetry. Results Total number of alarms in the study monitors was 28 176. Number of acknowledged alarms (ie acknowledgement indicator pressed in the monitor) was 695 (2.5%). The most common alarm types were: Respiratory rate high, 9077 (32.2%), pulse oximetry low, 4572 (16.2%) and pulse oximetry probe off, 4036 (14.3%). Number of alarms with duration under 10 s was 14 936 (53%). Number of individual alarm sounds was 105 000, 469 per monitor per day. Of respiratory rate high alarms, 2846 (31.4%) had initial value below 30 breaths min(-1). Of pulse oximetry low alarms, 2421 (53.0%) had initial value above 88%. Conclusions Alarm sound load, from individual alarm sounds, was nearly continuous in an emergency department observation room equipped with nine monitors. Intervention by the staff to the alarms was infrequent. More than half of the alarms were momentary.
  • Venesoja, Anu; Castrén, Maaret; Tella, Susanna; Lindström, Veronica (2020)
    Background Research on patient safety in emergency medical services (EMS) has mainly focused on the organisation's and/or the EMS personnel's perspective. Little is known about how patients perceive safety in EMS. This study aims to describe the patients' experiences of their sense of safety in EMS. Methods A qualitative design with individual interviews of EMS patients (n=21) and an inductive qualitative content analysis were used. Results Patients' experiences of EMS personnel's ability or inability to show or use their medical, technical and driving skills affected the patients' sense of safety. When they perceived a lack of professionalism and knowledge among EMS personnel, they felt unsafe. Patients highlighted equality in the encounter, the quality of the information given by EMS personnel and the opportunity to participate in their care as important factors creating a sense of safety during the EMS encounter. Altogether, patients' perceptions of safety in EMS were connected to their confidence in the EMS personnel. Conclusions Overall, patients felt safe during their EMS encounter, but the EMS personnel's professional competence alone is not enough for them to feel safe. Lack of communication or professionalism may compromise their sense of safety. Further work is needed to explore how patients' perceptions of safety can be used in improving safety in EMS.