Comparing the alarm detectability of electronic axillary thermometer in older adults aged 70 years or more: buzzer alarm, vibration alarm, or buzzer/vibration alarm

DOI
  • Koyano Yuiko
    Department of Nursing, The University of Tokyo Hospital
  • Nakagami Gojiro
    Department of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo Division of Care Innovation, Global Nursing Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo
  • Sanada Hiromi
    Department of Gerontological Nursing/Wound Care Management, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo Division of Care Innovation, Global Nursing Research Center, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo Ishikawa Prefectural Nursing University

Bibliographic Information

Other Title
  • 70歳以上高齢者における腋窩電子体温計のアラーム検知の比較： ブザーアラーム，振動アラーム，ブザー/振動アラーム

Search this article

Description

This study aimed to compare the detectability of four alarms among two kinds of axillary thermometers in adults aged ≥70 years. In this randomized crossover study, the detectability of four alarms was assessed using within-subject differences between a reference (A) and a new thermometer with lower frequency and higher volume (B1), vibration (B2), and both functions (B3). The seconds was calculated by subtracting the time buzzer or vibration going off, from the time participant detected it. Positive detectability was defined as below 5 seconds. Complete data of 47 participants (mean age, 79.7 years) were collected. The numbers (proportions) of participants able to detect the alarm of A, B1, B2, and B3 was 19 (40.4%), 31 (65. 9%), 46 (97. 8%), and 46 (97. 8%), respectively. A generalized linear mixed-effects model analysis, alarm detection was positively associated with alarm type, and age, but not between Mini-Mental State Examination. The odds ratios (95% confidence interval, P value) of B1, B2, B3, and age were 4.98 (1.15 to 21.51, P = 0.031), 688.92 (23.36 to 20316.95,P < 0.001), 688.92 (23.36 to 20316.95, P < 0.001), and 0.81(0.67 to 0.99; P ⁢ = 0.042), respectively. Vibration was the most important variable that allowed for easier detection of alarms in this group, with or without cognitive impairment.

Journal

Keywords

Details 詳細情報について

Report a problem

Back to top