RESPONSE-TIMES TO VISUAL AND AUDITORY ALARMS DURING ANESTHESIA

Objective To measure and compare the response times to audibly or visu ally presented alarms in the operating theatre. Methods The time taken by anaesthetists to cancel randomly generated visual and audible fals e alarms was measured during maintenance of routine anaesthesia. Alarm s were generated and times recorded by a laptop computer on the anaest hetic machine. The visual signal was a 15mm diameter red light positio ned next to the physiological monitor mounted on top of the machine. T he audible alarm was a Sonalert(R) buzzer of the type incorporated int o many medical devices. Results Nineteen anaesthetists provided a tota l of seventy-two hours of data (887 alarm events). The response times to visual alarms was significantly longer than to audible alarms (P=0. 001 Mann Whitney U test). [GRAPHICS] Conclusions The ability of anaest hetists to appreciate changes in patient physiology may be limited by delays in noticing information presented by monitors. The rapid respon se to the vast majority of alarms indicates a high level of vigilance among the anaesthetists studied. However; this study suggests that it is safer to rely on audible rather than visual alarms when time-critic al information such as oxygenation, heart bent and ventilator disconne ction is concerned. Visual alarms would appear to be more appropriate for conveying less urgent information.