Anesthesia Providers' Perspectives on the Redesigned Philips Acoustic Alarm System: Qualitative Pre- and
Greta Gasciauskaite1, Stefanie Senn2, Cynthia Hunn1
1Institute of Anaesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Raemistrasse 100, Zurich, 8091, Switzerland, 41 432530255.
Background:
Alarm fatigue caused by frequent or false alarms poses a persistent threat to patient safety. Despite technological progress, alarm acoustics remain largely unchanged and are often perceived as disruptive. To address this, Philips redesigned its patient monitoring alarm sounds through a user-centered approach aimed at improving priority differentiation and reducing emotional strain.
Objective:
This study provides insights into human-technology interaction by examining anesthesia providers' experiences with the original and updated alarms, with a focus on emotional responses, usability, and guidance for the user-centered design of future clinical alarm systems.
Methods:
This single-center qualitative study involved anesthesia providers who completed an online questionnaire before and after the implementation of the updated Philips alarms. Only those who completed the pre-implementation phase participated in the postimplementation phase. The questionnaire included 4 open-ended questions addressing perceptions of the current alarm sounds, suggestions for improvement, design expectations, and attitudes toward an alarm-free operating room. Responses were analyzed using thematic analysis to identify key usability and emotional response themes.
Results:
A total of 90 eligible anesthesia providers participated in the preimplementation phase, and 77 (85.6%) participated in the postimplementation phase. Positive emotional responses increased in the postimplementation phase, whereas concerns regarding alarm functionality also became more prominent. Before the introduction of the updated alarm sounds, participants predominantly called for softer sounds. Following implementation, the most frequently expressed concern shifted to the need for clearer prioritization of alarms. Across both phases, the primary expectation remained the alarms' ability to effectively capture attention. The concept of an alarm-free operating room elicited concerns about increased workload and potential risks to patient safety.
Conclusions:
The redesigned alarm sounds were perceived more positively in terms of emotional acceptance; however, they did not improve the recognition of alarm priority. The modest acoustic changes did not address the broader issue of alarm overload. Suggestions such as visual-only alerts for low-priority alarms show potential but must be balanced with patient safety standards. Future alarm development should combine user feedback with expert-driven and evidence-based approaches to improve both usability and clinical effectiveness.
