Mobilisation alarm triggers, response times and utilisation before and after the introduction of policy for alarm reduction or elimination: A descriptive and comparative analysis
Mobilisation alarm triggers, response times and utilisation before and after the introduction of policy for alarm reduction or elimination: A descriptive and comparative analysis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103769
复制
发表时间：
2021-02-26
影响因子：
8.1
通讯作者：
Haines, Terry
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Brusco, Natasha K.;Hutchinson, Alison M.;Haines, Terry
背景：动员警报是医院中使用的一种福尔斯预防策略，用于在有风险的患者试图动员时提醒工作人员。在澳大利亚，移动警报的估计年成本为5800万澳元。有越来越多的随机对照试验的证据表明，动员警报不太可能防止福尔斯.Aim：本研究的主要目的是描述动员警报误触发率和工作人员的响应时间在不同的卫生服务。第二个目的是比较前后动员警报利用率以下的政策，以减少或消除动员alarms.Methods：这种描述性和比较研究进行了通过莫纳什合作伙伴福尔斯联盟在六个卫生服务在墨尔本，澳大利亚。本研究描述了三个卫生服务机构的真假警报触发器和触发器响应时间以及六个卫生服务机构的常规护理动员警报利用率;然后比较了两个卫生服务机构在引入政策以减少（< 2.5%）或消除（0.0%）在急性和康复环境中的动员警报。最常见的观察结果是假警报（n = 74，52%），其次是真警报（n = 67，47%）和无警报（n = 3，2%）。对真报警和假报警的响应时间平均为37秒（SD 92），其中包括61次0秒，因为报警触发时工作人员在场。如果取消触发警报时工作人员在场的61次，平均响应时间为65秒（SD 114）。急性期和康复期的患者护理动员警报使用率分别为7%（n = 171/2，338）和11%（n = 286/2，623）。引入减少和消除动员警报条件的政策是成功的，利用率降低了1.8%（n = 11/609），消除利用率为0.0%（n = 0/521）。结论：一半的动员警报触发是假的，当警报触发时没有工作人员在场，工作人员需要大约一分钟的时间来响应。虽然常规护理中有十四分之一的急性患者和九分之一的康复患者使用动员警报，但有可能引入改变实践的政策，以减少或消除动员警报的使用，为未来的撤资有效性研究提供可行性证据，证明撤资警报是可行的。(c)2020爱思唯尔有限公司保留所有权利。
Background: Mobilisation alarms are a falls prevention strategy used in hospitals to alert staff when an at risk patient is attempting to mobilise. Mobilisation alarms have an estimated annual cost of $AUD58MIL in Australia. There is growing evidence from randomised controlled trials indicating mobilisation alarms are unlikely to prevent falls.Aim: The primary aim of this study was to describe the rate of mobilisation alarm false triggers and staff response time across different health services. The secondary aim was to compare pre to post mobilisation alarm utilisation following the introduction of policy to reduce or eliminate mobilisation alarms.Methods: This descriptive and comparative study was conducted through Monash Partners Falls Alliance across six health services in Melbourne, Australia. This study described true and false alarm triggers and trigger response times across three health services and usual care mobilisation alarm utilisation across six health services; and then compared alarm utilisation across two health services following the introduction of policy to reduce ( < 2.5%) or eliminate (0.0%) mobilisation alarms in the acute and rehabilitation settings.Results: The most frequent observation was a false alarm ( n = 74, 52%), followed by a true alarm ( n = 67, 47%) and no alarm ( n = 3, 2%). Time to respond to the true and false alarms was an average of 37 seconds (SD 92) and this included 61 occasions of 0 seconds as a member of staff was present when the alarm triggered. If the 61 occasions of staff being present when the alarm triggered were removed, the average time to respond was 65 seconds (SD114). Usual care mobilisation alarm utilisation in acute was 7% ( n = 171/2,338) and in rehabilitation was 11% ( n = 286/2,623). Introducing policy for reduced and eliminated mobilisation alarm conditions was successful with a reduced utilisation rate of 1.8% ( n = 11/609) and an eliminated utilisation rate of 0.0% ( n = 0/521).Conclusion: Half of mobilisation alarm triggers are false and when alarms trigger without staff present, staff take about a minute to respond. While usual care has one in fourteen patients in acute and one in nine patients in rehabilitation using a mobilisation alarm, it is possible to introduce policy which will change practice to reduce or eliminate the use of mobilisation alarms, providing evidence of feasibility for future disinvestment effectiveness studies that it is feasible to disinvest in the alarms.(c) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.