Why we do not have - And will not have - The integrated and smart alarm systems that technology would allow us to have today

Frank E Block

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Many authors have been advocating smart alarm systems for more than 30 years, and technology for such systems has been described in the literature for more than 20 years. Such systems do not exist today. Goals: Incoming data would be analyzed to reject artifact. Multiple inputs would be used to determine alarm conditions. Information would be passed to the best person to address the problem. If the primary person failed to respond, a backup person would be notified. The Problem: One might show a statistical improvement in patient outcome with a new system, but there would always be patients who would have had an alarm under the old system, and who did not have an alarm with the new system. Only if Congress would exempt the alarm integrators from liability, as the vaccine makers are protected, could such a system be built.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)592-595
Number of pages4
JournalJournal of Electrocardiology
Volume45
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2012
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Technology
Artifacts
Vaccines

Keywords

  • Artificial intelligence
  • Clinical alarms
  • Legislation & jurisprudence
  • Medicolegal aspects
  • Monitoring physiologic
  • Patient monitoring
  • Physiologic monitor alarms
  • Systems integration

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Why we do not have - And will not have - The integrated and smart alarm systems that technology would allow us to have today. / Block, Frank E.

In: Journal of Electrocardiology, Vol. 45, No. 6, 01.11.2012, p. 592-595.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c28dd152f7a448f290e44cffce152892,
title = "Why we do not have - And will not have - The integrated and smart alarm systems that technology would allow us to have today",
abstract = "Background: Many authors have been advocating smart alarm systems for more than 30 years, and technology for such systems has been described in the literature for more than 20 years. Such systems do not exist today. Goals: Incoming data would be analyzed to reject artifact. Multiple inputs would be used to determine alarm conditions. Information would be passed to the best person to address the problem. If the primary person failed to respond, a backup person would be notified. The Problem: One might show a statistical improvement in patient outcome with a new system, but there would always be patients who would have had an alarm under the old system, and who did not have an alarm with the new system. Only if Congress would exempt the alarm integrators from liability, as the vaccine makers are protected, could such a system be built.",
keywords = "Artificial intelligence, Clinical alarms, Legislation & jurisprudence, Medicolegal aspects, Monitoring physiologic, Patient monitoring, Physiologic monitor alarms, Systems integration",
author = "Block, {Frank E}",
year = "2012",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2012.08.002",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "45",
pages = "592--595",
journal = "Journal of Electrocardiology",
issn = "0022-0736",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Why we do not have - And will not have - The integrated and smart alarm systems that technology would allow us to have today

AU - Block, Frank E

PY - 2012/11/1

Y1 - 2012/11/1

N2 - Background: Many authors have been advocating smart alarm systems for more than 30 years, and technology for such systems has been described in the literature for more than 20 years. Such systems do not exist today. Goals: Incoming data would be analyzed to reject artifact. Multiple inputs would be used to determine alarm conditions. Information would be passed to the best person to address the problem. If the primary person failed to respond, a backup person would be notified. The Problem: One might show a statistical improvement in patient outcome with a new system, but there would always be patients who would have had an alarm under the old system, and who did not have an alarm with the new system. Only if Congress would exempt the alarm integrators from liability, as the vaccine makers are protected, could such a system be built.

AB - Background: Many authors have been advocating smart alarm systems for more than 30 years, and technology for such systems has been described in the literature for more than 20 years. Such systems do not exist today. Goals: Incoming data would be analyzed to reject artifact. Multiple inputs would be used to determine alarm conditions. Information would be passed to the best person to address the problem. If the primary person failed to respond, a backup person would be notified. The Problem: One might show a statistical improvement in patient outcome with a new system, but there would always be patients who would have had an alarm under the old system, and who did not have an alarm with the new system. Only if Congress would exempt the alarm integrators from liability, as the vaccine makers are protected, could such a system be built.

KW - Artificial intelligence

KW - Clinical alarms

KW - Legislation & jurisprudence

KW - Medicolegal aspects

KW - Monitoring physiologic

KW - Patient monitoring

KW - Physiologic monitor alarms

KW - Systems integration

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84867871331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84867871331&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2012.08.002

DO - 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2012.08.002

M3 - Article

VL - 45

SP - 592

EP - 595

JO - Journal of Electrocardiology

JF - Journal of Electrocardiology

SN - 0022-0736

IS - 6

ER -