Abstract
Alongside the development and testing of new audible alarms intended to support International Electrotechnical Commission 60601-1-8, a global standard concerned with alarm safety, the categories of risk that the standard denotes require further thought and possible updating. In this article, we revisit the origins of the categories covered by the standard. These categories were based on the ways that tissue damage can be caused. We consider these categories from the varied professional perspectives of the authors: human factors, semiotics, clinical practice, and the patient or family (layperson). We conclude that while the categories possess many clinically applicable and defensible features from our range of perspectives, the advances in alarm design now available may allow a more flexible approach. We present a three-tier system with superordinate, basic, and subordinate levels that fit both within the thinking embodied in the current standard and possible new developments.
DOI
10.2345/0899-8205-51.s2.50
Publication Date
2017-02-01
Publication Title
Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology
Volume
51
Issue
s2
Publisher
Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI)
ISSN
1943-5967
Embargo Period
2024-11-22
First Page
50
Last Page
57
Recommended Citation
Edworthy, J., Schlesinger, J., McNeer, R., Kristensen, M., & Bennett, C. (2017) 'Classifying Alarms: Seeking Durability, Credibility, Consistency, and Simplicity', Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, 51(s2), pp. 50-57. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI): Available at: https://doi.org/10.2345/0899-8205-51.s2.50
