Lessons from the Glass Cockpit: Innovation in Alarm Systems to Support Cognitive Work

Nurses working in the hospital setting increasingly have become overburdened by managing alarms that, in many cases, provide low information value regarding patient health. The current trend, aided by disposable, wearable technologies, is to promote patient monitoring that does not require entering a patient''s room. The development of telemetry alarms and middleware escalation devices adds to the continued growth of auditory, visual, and haptic alarms to the hospital environment but can fail to provide a more complete understanding of patient health. As we begin to innovate to both address alarm overload and improve patient management, perhaps using fundamentally different integration architectures, lessons from the aviation flight deck are worth considering. Commercial jet transport systems and their alarms have evolved slowly over many decades and have developed integration methods that account for operational context, provide multiple response protocol levels, and present a more integrated view of the airplane system state. We articulate three alarm system objectives: (1) supporting hazard management, (2) establishing context, and (3) supporting alarm prioritization. More generally, we present the case that alarm design in aviation can spur directions for innovation for telemetry monitoring systems in hospitals.

Healthcare, and the hospital setting in particular, has experienced rapid growth of auditory, visual, and haptic alarms. These alarms can be notoriously unreliable or can focus on narrowly defined changes to the patient''s state.1 Further, this alarm proliferation has led nursing staff to become increasingly overburdened and distressed by managing alarms.2 Current alarm system architectures do not effectively integrate meaningful data that support increased patient status awareness and management.3 In contrast, commercial jet transports, over many decades, have developed integration methods that account for operational context, provide multiple response protocol levels, and present a more integrated view of airplane state to support operational decision making. Similar methods for advanced control rooms in nuclear power generation have been reviewed by Wu and Li.4In healthcare, The Joint Commission (TJC) and hospital quality departments have generated guidance that further elevates the need to address the industry''s “alarm problem.” In 2014, TJC issued an accreditation requirement (National Patient Safety Goal 06.01.01) titled, “Reduce patient harm associated with clinical alarm systems.”5 This requirement continues to be included in the 2020 requirements for accreditation.From the authors'' perspective, this requirement is leading to solutions that will not effectively support performance of essential tasks and is moving away from the types of innovations that are being sought in aviation and other settings. For example, healthcare administrators advocate categorizing alarms into high-priority (“run”), medium-priority (“walk”), and low-priority (“shuffle”) alarms independent of unit context, hospital context, situational context, and historical patient context.6 In addition, each alarm category is assigned a minimum response time. When nurses do not meet response time targets, administrators may add staff (“telemetry monitor watchers”), increase the volume of alarms, escalate alarms to other staff to respond, increase the “startling” nature of alarms to better direct attention, and benchmark average response times by individual nurse identifiers. Although well intentioned, these approaches can sometimes add to the alarm overload problem by creating more alarms and involving more people in alarm response.The authors, who have investigated human performance in several operational settings, believe that a need exists to reflect more broadly on the role of alarms in understanding and managing a system (be it an aircraft or a set of patients in a hospital department). Most alarms in hospitals signal when a variable is outside a prespecified range that is determined from the patient population (e.g., high heart rate), when a change in cardiac rhythm occurs (e.g., ventricular fibrillation V-fib]), or when a problem occurs with the alarm system (e.g., change battery). These alarms support shifts in attention when the event being alarmed requires an action by a nurse and when the relative priority of the response is clear in relation to competing demands.Certain alarms are useful for other purposes, such as aiding situation awareness about planned, routine tasks (e.g., an expected event of high heart rate has occurred, which indicates that a staff member is helping a patient to the bathroom). Increasingly, secondary alarm notification systems (SANSs), otherwise known as middleware escalation systems, are incorporating communications through alarms, such as patient call systems, staff emergency broadcasts, and demands for “code blue” teams to immediately go to a patient''s bedside.Thus, alarms are used to attract attention (i.e., to orient staff to an important change). However, from a cognitive engineering perspective, we believe alarms can also be used to support awareness, prioritization, and decision making. That is, the current siloed approach to alarm presentation in healthcare, which is driven by technology, impedes the ability to properly understand and appreciate the implications of alarms. Understanding the meaning and implications of alarms can best be achieved when they are integrated via a system interface that places the alarm in the broader context of system state. We hope that sharing our insights can spur both design and alarm management innovations for bedside telemetry monitoring devices and related middleware escalation systems and dashboards.In this article, we provide insights from human factors research, and from the integrated glass cockpit in particular, to prompt innovation with clinical alarm systems. To draw lessons from aviation and other domains, we conducted a series of meetings among three human factors engineers with expertise in alarm design in healthcare, aviation, nuclear power generation, and military command and control domains. In the process, we identified differences in the design, use, and philosophies for managing alarms in different domains; defined alarm systems; clarified common elements in the “alarm problem” across these domains; articulated objectives for an alarm system that supports a human operator in controlling a complex process (i.e., supervisory control); and identified levels of alarm system maturity. Based on these activities, we assert that:

1. Clinical alarm systems fail to reduce unnecessary complexity compared with the integrated glass cockpit.
2. Aviation and clinical alarm systems share core objectives.
3. The challenges with aviation and clinical alarm systems are similar, including where alarm systems fall short of their objectives.
4. We can demarcate levels in the process of alarm system evolution, largely based on alarm reliability, system integration, and how system state is described. The higher levels point the way for innovation in clinical alarm systems.