The IEC 60601-1-8 international medical alarm standard was created to give engineers guidance for designing alarms that are easily perceivable by humans. Included within this are a number of reserved alarm sounds that use tonal melodies to represent common types of alarms. Despite the standard, practitioners can still fail to hear and respond to alarms. This can have a profound negative impact on patient life and health. One of the factors that contributes to this problem is simultaneous masking: a condition where one or more alarms can be rendered imperceptible in the presence of other alarms due to limitations of the human perception system. Unfortunately, the tonal nature of the IEC 60601-1-8 reserved sounds makes them particularly susceptible to masking. It can be difficult to determine how masking can manifest in a collection of alarms that can sound concurrently given the inherent complexity of the statespace. In this work, we employ a computational method that employs mathematical proof techniques to determine if masking is possible in a model of a configuration of medical alarms. We use this to analyze the low and medium priority reserved alarm sounds of the IEC 60601-1-8 standard. We describe our method, present the results of our analyses, discuss these results, and explore future research directions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmbikairajahE.DavisA.WongW. (1997). Auditory masking and MPEG-1 audio compression. Electronics & Communication Engineering Journal, 9(4), 165–175.
2.
BoltonM. L. (2017). Novel developments in formal methods for human factors engineering. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (Vol. 61, pp. 715–717). Los Angeles: Sage.
3.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J. (2009). A method for the formal verification of human interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 53rd Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (pp. 764–768). Santa Monica: HFES.
4.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J. (2010). Formally verifying human-automation in-teraction as part of a system model: Limitations and tradeoffs. Innovations in Systems and Software Engineering: A NASA Journal, 6(3), 219–231.
5.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J.SiminiceanuR. I. (2012). Generating phenotypical erroneous human behavior to evaluate human-automation interaction us-ing model checking. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(11), 888–906.
6.
BoltonM. L.BassE. J.SiminiceanuR. I. (2013). Using formal verifica-tion to evaluate human-automation interaction in safety critical systems, a review. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man and Cybernetics: Systems, 43(3), 488–503.
7.
BoltonM. L.EdworthyJ.BoydA. D. (ND). A computationally efficient formal method for discovering simultaneous masking in medical alarms. Applied Accoustics. (Under Review)
8.
BoltonM. L.HasanainB.BoydeA. D.EdworthyJ. (2016). Using model checking to detect masking in IEC 60601-1-8-compliant alarm configura-tions. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting (pp. 636–640). Los Angeles.
9.
BosiM.GoldbergR. E. (2003). Introduction to digital audio coding and standards. New York: Springer.
10.
BrandenburgK.StollG. (1994). ISO/MPEG-1 audio: A generic standard for coding of high-quality digital audio. Journal of the Audio Engineering Society, 42(10), 780–792.
11.
ClarkeE. M.GrumbergO.PeledD. A. (1999). Model checking. Cam-bridge: MIT Press.
12.
DixA. J. (1991). Formal methods for interactive systems (Vol. 16). London: Academic Press.
EdworthyJ.HellierE. (2005). Fewer but better auditory alarms will im-prove patient safety. Quality and Safety in Health Care, 14(3), 212–215.
15.
EdworthyJ.HellierE. (2006). Alarms and human behaviour: Implications for medical alarms. British Journal of Anaesthesia, 97(1), 12–17.
16.
EdworthyJ. R.McNeerR. R.BennettC. L.DudarykR.McDougallS. J. P.SchlesingerJ. J.. . .OsbornD. (n.d.). Getting alarm sounds into a global standard: A case study with reflections. Ergonomics in Design. (Accepted)
FastlH.ZwickerE. (2006). Psychoacoustics: Facts and models (Vol. 22). Springer.
19.
GaverW. W. (1986). Auditory icons: Using sound in computer interfaces. Human-computer Interaction, 2(2), 167–177.
20.
HasanainB.BoydA.BoltonM. (2016). Using model checking to detect simultaneous masking in medical alarms. IEEE Transactions on Human-Machine Systems, 46(2), 174–185.
21.
HasanainB.BoydA.BoltonM. L. (2014). An approach to model check-ing the perceptual interactions of medical alarms. In Proceedings of the 2014 international annual meeting of the human factors and ergonomics society (pp. 822–826). Santa Monica: HFES.
22.
HasanainB.BoydA. D.EdworthyJ.BoltonM. L. (2017). A formal approach to discovering simultaneous additive masking between auditory medical alarms. Applied Ergonomics, 58, 500–514.
23.
IEC 60601-1-8. (2003-08-14). Medical electrical equipment - part 1-8. Geneva: International Electrotechnical Commission.
24.
KonkaniA.OakleyB.BauldT. J. (2012). Reducing hospital noise: A review of medical device alarm management. Biomedical Instrumentation & Technology, 46(6), 478–487.
25.
LacherezP.SeahE.SandersonP. (2007). Overlapping melodic alarms are almost indiscriminable. Human Factors, 49(4), 637–645.
26.
LutfiR. A. (1983). Additivity of simultaneous masking. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 73(1), 262–267.
27.
MomtahanK.HetuR.TansleyB. (1993). Audibility and identification of auditory alarms in the operating room and intensive care unit. Ergonomics, 36(10), 1159–1176.
28.
PattersonR. D.MayfieldT. F. (1990). Auditory warning sounds in the work environment. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. B, Biological Sciences, 327(1241), 485–492.
29.
SandersonP.WeeA.LacherezP. (2006). Learnability and discriminability of melodic medical equipment alarms. Anaesthesia, 61(2), 142–147.
30.
The Joint Commission. (2013a, April). Medical device alarm safety in hospi-tals. Sentinel Even Alert, 50.
31.
The Joint Commission. (2013b, July). Npsg.06.01.01: Improve the safety of clinical alarm systems. Joint Commission Perspectives, 33.
32.
ToorO.RyanT.RichardM. (2008). Auditory masking potential of common operating room sounds: A psychoacoustic analysis. In Anesthe-siology (Vol. 109, p. A1207). Park Ridge: American Society of Anesthe-siologists.
33.
WeyersB.BowenJ.DixA.PalanqueP. (Eds.). (2017). The handbook of formal methods in human-computer interaction. Berlin: Springer.
