Related Experiment Video
Updated: Nov 15, 2025

Reducing State Anxiety Using Working Memory Maintenance
Published on: July 19, 2017
Mobilisation alarm triggers, response times and utilisation before and after the introduction of policy for alarm
Natasha K Brusco1, Alison M Hutchinson2, Deb Mitchell3
1Rehabilitation, Ageing and Independent living (RAIL) Research Centre, School of Primary and Allied Health Care, Monash University, Level 3, Building G, Peninsula Campus, McMahons Road, Frankston, Victoria 3199, Australia.
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.
More Related Videos
06:49Evaluation of a Smartphone-based Human Activity Recognition System in a Daily Living Environment
Published on: December 11, 2015
06:16An Experimental Approach to Investigating Effects of Artificial Light at Night on Free-Ranging Animals: Implementation, Results, and Directions for Future Research
Published on: February 2, 2022
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
Steps in Outbreak Investigation
Sympathetic Activation
Reclosers and Fuses
A comprehensive protection scheme for radial distribution...