Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Noise level in the NICU: Impact of monitoring equipment].

Authors: C, Degorre; L, Ghyselen; L, Barcat; L, Dégrugilliers; G, Kongolo; A, Leké; P, Tourneux;

[Noise level in the NICU: Impact of monitoring equipment].

Abstract

The sound level in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) may induce adverse effects for neonates, their family, and the staff. This study evaluated the sound level in a NICU before and after the implementation of an educational program.A baseline audit determined the most exposed area of the NICU and the most exposed periods over 24 h. Then an educational program started, including sound level measurement methods, side effects for neonates, results from the baseline audit, and new visual monitoring equipment (SoundEar®). Sound levels were measured before, 1, 2, and 3 months after starting the educational program and the use of SoundEar®. The NICU staff was blind to the periods of sound level measurements.The base noise level was high, especially near the central part of the NICU and during transmission time (mean Leq: 60.6±3.6dB(A); sound peaks: 94.8±6.8dB(A)). A decrease in the sound level (P<0.001) was found 1 and 2, but not 3 months after starting the educational program. It remained high compared to the guidelines.Human activity was responsible for most of the sound level. An educational program was effective in reducing the sound level, but did not reach the guideline's target. The continuous use of sound-monitoring equipment after starting the project reduced the sound level for 2 months, but no longer. Therefore, a continuous educational program about the sound level in the NICU including feedback monitoring every 2-3 months should be encouraged.

Keywords

Inservice Training, Sound Spectrography, Clinical Alarms, Intensive Care Units, Neonatal, Infant, Newborn, Humans, France, Noise, Environmental Monitoring

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    9
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 10%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
9
Top 10%
Average
Top 10%
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!