Cargando…

Impact of a visual indicator on the noise level in an emergency medical dispatch centre - a pilot study

BACKGROUND: Noise levels are monitored in call centres. A maximum of 52 to 55 dB(A) is recommended in order to prevent adverse events. We aimed at assessing the noise level and the impact of a visual noise indicator on the ambient noise level in a French Regional Emergency Medical Dispatch Centre (E...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Outrey, Justin, Pretalli, Jean-Baptiste, Pujol, Sophie, Brembilla, Alice, Desmettre, Thibaut, Lambert, Christophe, Labourey, Jean-Marc, Mauny, Frédéric, Khoury, Abdo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7901215/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33622242
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12873-021-00415-5
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Noise levels are monitored in call centres. A maximum of 52 to 55 dB(A) is recommended in order to prevent adverse events. We aimed at assessing the noise level and the impact of a visual noise indicator on the ambient noise level in a French Regional Emergency Medical Dispatch Centre (EMDC). METHODS: We conducted an observational study in the EMDC of the SAMU25 (University Hospital of Besancon). We measured the noise level using a SoundEarII® noise indicator (Dräger Medical SAS, France). The measurement took place in two phases on three consecutive days from 00:00 to 11:59 PM. At baseline, phase 1, the device recorded the average ambient noise for each minute without visual indication. Secondly, phase 2 included a sensor mounted with a light that would turn on green if noise was below 65 dB(A), orange if noise ever exceeded 65 and red if it exceeded 75 dB(A). RESULTS: In the presence of the visual noise indicator, the L(Aeq) was significantly lower than in the absence of visual noise indicator (a mean difference of − 4.19 dB; P < 10(–3)). It was higher than 55 dB(A) in 84.9 and 43.9% of the time in phases 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The noise levels were frequently higher than the standards, and sometimes close to recommended limits, requiring preventive measures. The noise indicator had a positive effect on the ambient noise level. This work will allow the implementation of effective prevention solutions and, based on future assessments, could improve operators’ well-being and better care for patient.