Classifying alarms: Seeking durability, credibility, consistency, and simplicity

Judy Reed Edworthy, Joseph J. Schlesinger, Richard McNeer, Michael Sonne Kristensen, Christopher Bennett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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. Work is underway to update the audible alarms associated with an important global medical device standard, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60601-1-8, General requirements, tests and guidance for alarm systems in medical electrical equipment and medical electrical systems.1 The standard, which is concerned with the safety of medical devices, specifies the audible alarms that should accompany the risk categories described. The audible alarms themselves were demonstrated to be less than optimal.2-5 Four sets of prototype updates were developed and are in the process of being benchmarked.6 The alarms then will be made available for further testing. An important issue emerging from this work is that the categories of risk specified in the standard may require updating in addition to the audible alarms. In this article, we revisit the categories from our multidisciplinary perspective in an attempt to open up a discussion of the categories and suggest how updating them might be approached. The writing team consisted of a human factors and auditory alarms specialist, a semiotician, two anesthesiologists, and a layperson who might be a patient or a member of a patient's family. This article is not a systematic or a narrative review. It is a collection of viewpoints aimed at stimulating debate. We also provide an updated proposal in an attempt to stimulate the debate further.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)50-57
Number of pages8
JournalBiomedical Instrumentation and Technology
Volume51
Issue numberHorizons
StatePublished - Mar 1 2017

Fingerprint

Durability
Human engineering
Equipment Safety
Semiotics
Equipment and Supplies
Alarm systems
Testing
Tissue
Safety

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)
  • Biomedical Engineering
  • Computer Networks and Communications

Cite this

Classifying alarms : Seeking durability, credibility, consistency, and simplicity. / Edworthy, Judy Reed; Schlesinger, Joseph J.; McNeer, Richard; Kristensen, Michael Sonne; Bennett, Christopher.

In: Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology, Vol. 51, No. Horizons, 01.03.2017, p. 50-57.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Edworthy, Judy Reed ; Schlesinger, Joseph J. ; McNeer, Richard ; Kristensen, Michael Sonne ; Bennett, Christopher. / Classifying alarms : Seeking durability, credibility, consistency, and simplicity. In: Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology. 2017 ; Vol. 51, No. Horizons. pp. 50-57.
@article{510a73036bf9496d82405ddebbe79872,
title = "Classifying alarms: Seeking durability, credibility, consistency, and simplicity",
abstract = "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. Work is underway to update the audible alarms associated with an important global medical device standard, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60601-1-8, General requirements, tests and guidance for alarm systems in medical electrical equipment and medical electrical systems.1 The standard, which is concerned with the safety of medical devices, specifies the audible alarms that should accompany the risk categories described. The audible alarms themselves were demonstrated to be less than optimal.2-5 Four sets of prototype updates were developed and are in the process of being benchmarked.6 The alarms then will be made available for further testing. An important issue emerging from this work is that the categories of risk specified in the standard may require updating in addition to the audible alarms. In this article, we revisit the categories from our multidisciplinary perspective in an attempt to open up a discussion of the categories and suggest how updating them might be approached. The writing team consisted of a human factors and auditory alarms specialist, a semiotician, two anesthesiologists, and a layperson who might be a patient or a member of a patient's family. This article is not a systematic or a narrative review. It is a collection of viewpoints aimed at stimulating debate. We also provide an updated proposal in an attempt to stimulate the debate further.",
author = "Edworthy, {Judy Reed} and Schlesinger, {Joseph J.} and Richard McNeer and Kristensen, {Michael Sonne} and Christopher Bennett",
year = "2017",
month = "3",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "51",
pages = "50--57",
journal = "Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology",
issn = "0899-8205",
publisher = "Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation",
number = "Horizons",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Classifying alarms

T2 - Seeking durability, credibility, consistency, and simplicity

AU - Edworthy, Judy Reed

AU - Schlesinger, Joseph J.

AU - McNeer, Richard

AU - Kristensen, Michael Sonne

AU - Bennett, Christopher

PY - 2017/3/1

Y1 - 2017/3/1

N2 - 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. Work is underway to update the audible alarms associated with an important global medical device standard, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60601-1-8, General requirements, tests and guidance for alarm systems in medical electrical equipment and medical electrical systems.1 The standard, which is concerned with the safety of medical devices, specifies the audible alarms that should accompany the risk categories described. The audible alarms themselves were demonstrated to be less than optimal.2-5 Four sets of prototype updates were developed and are in the process of being benchmarked.6 The alarms then will be made available for further testing. An important issue emerging from this work is that the categories of risk specified in the standard may require updating in addition to the audible alarms. In this article, we revisit the categories from our multidisciplinary perspective in an attempt to open up a discussion of the categories and suggest how updating them might be approached. The writing team consisted of a human factors and auditory alarms specialist, a semiotician, two anesthesiologists, and a layperson who might be a patient or a member of a patient's family. This article is not a systematic or a narrative review. It is a collection of viewpoints aimed at stimulating debate. We also provide an updated proposal in an attempt to stimulate the debate further.

AB - 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. Work is underway to update the audible alarms associated with an important global medical device standard, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) 60601-1-8, General requirements, tests and guidance for alarm systems in medical electrical equipment and medical electrical systems.1 The standard, which is concerned with the safety of medical devices, specifies the audible alarms that should accompany the risk categories described. The audible alarms themselves were demonstrated to be less than optimal.2-5 Four sets of prototype updates were developed and are in the process of being benchmarked.6 The alarms then will be made available for further testing. An important issue emerging from this work is that the categories of risk specified in the standard may require updating in addition to the audible alarms. In this article, we revisit the categories from our multidisciplinary perspective in an attempt to open up a discussion of the categories and suggest how updating them might be approached. The writing team consisted of a human factors and auditory alarms specialist, a semiotician, two anesthesiologists, and a layperson who might be a patient or a member of a patient's family. This article is not a systematic or a narrative review. It is a collection of viewpoints aimed at stimulating debate. We also provide an updated proposal in an attempt to stimulate the debate further.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85018683342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85018683342&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 28296464

AN - SCOPUS:85018683342

VL - 51

SP - 50

EP - 57

JO - Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology

JF - Biomedical Instrumentation and Technology

SN - 0899-8205

IS - Horizons

ER -