BEEP. BEEP. BEEP. Most clinicians don’t ignore alarms on purpose—they’re just overwhelmed by how many go off.

But behind all the noise, there’s often a deeper problem: too often, medical device alarm design is treated as a regulatory checkbox rather than a tool for improving patient safety. And that mindset can lead to alarms that are ineffective or even counterproductive.

To help your team avoid common pitfalls, we’ve created a free Alarm Design Best Practices Poster—a quick-reference guide that highlights the most frequent mistakes and actionable design principles. Download the poster and keep it on hand as a reminder of what good alarm design looks like in practice.

Poorly designed alarms increase alarm fatigue and endanger patients. Studies show that up to 85-99% of clinical alarms in hospital settings are non-actionable, making it more likely that critical notifications are missed. One tragic example occurred in 2010, when an 89-year-old patient at Massachusetts General Hospital died after alarms signaling a slowing heart rate went unanswered for over 20 minutes. Nurses later reported they did not recall hearing them.

But alarm fatigue isn’t the only risk. When technical alarms—like those for low battery or detached leads—are treated as low priority or too easy to dismiss, critical monitoring can silently fail. Poor design makes it easy for these technical issues to be ignored, masking life-threatening conditions and preventing clinicians from seeing the problem until it’s too late.

This underscores the need for alarms that are not just compliant, but truly effective. Overuse of non-critical alarms can desensitize clinicians, disrupt sleep, and erode trust. The challenge isn’t just notifying clinicians but doing so in a way that enhances awareness without overwhelming them—or needlessly distressing patients and their families. To support both clinicians and patients, alarms must be designed to be both effective and appropriate.

Effective medical device alarm design requires a balance of usability, clinical insight, and engineering precision—an approach we take across our medical device design work at Delve to help teams build safer, more intuitive systems. This article outlines the most common mistakes in medical device alarm design—and the best practices that support safer, more responsive systems.

6 Medical Device Alarm Design Mistakes (and How to Avoid Them)

There are a lot of ways alarm design can go sideways. These are the ones we see most often.

Understanding the most frequent alarm design failures—and how to address them—can help manufacturers create safer, more effective alarm systems.

Not all alarm features are optional—some, like auditory alerts, are mandated by international standards such as IEC 60601-1-8. But compliance alone isn’t enough. The most effective alarm systems go beyond what’s required, using thoughtful design to support clinician awareness and patient safety in real-world clinical environments.

If no one sees or hears the alarm, it’s already failed.

Mistake #1

Poor Alarm Visibility in Clinical Settings

If no one sees or hears the alarm, it’s already failed.

Problem. Alarms must be easily recognizable in all clinical scenarios, yet many systems rely too heavily on screen-based alerts. In high-pressure settings, clinicians may lack a clear view of the device screen or may not hear the alarm. Without additional cues, alarms may go unnoticed, delaying interventions.

Best Practice. To improve alarm visibility: Use global status lights, remote interfaces, or other non-screen-based indicators visible from multiple angles.

Example: Alarm Challenges in Helicopter Transport

During air transport, medical devices are often strapped down in available spaces, sometimes out of direct sight. High noise levels make audible alarms ineffective, leaving clinicians to rely on visual cues. Devices designed for these environments incorporate multi-angle status lights or remote displays, ensuring alarms remain visible even in challenging conditions.

If urgent alarms are buried, clinicians can’t act on what they can’t see.

Mistake #2

Clinical Alarm Systems That Don’t Prioritize Effectively

If urgent alarms are buried, clinicians can’t act on what they can’t see.

Problem. Even when alarms are appropriately categorized by priority, poor design can create confusion by:

• Failing to make urgency levels immediately clear.

• Lacking effective escalation mechanisms.

• Overloading clinicians with unclear visual and auditory cues.

Best Practice

• Use distinct visual and auditory cues to differentiate priority levels.

• Ensure the most critical alarm is always the most prominent.

• Minimize redundant alarms—focus on alerting the root cause.
• Show all the alarms. Do not play hide-and-seek with information.

By clearly distinguishing urgency levels, alarm systems enhance, rather than hinder, clinical workflows.

Mistake #3

Alarm Fatigue from Poor Risk Categorization and Overuse

Too many beeps. Not enough urgency.

Problem. Excessive alarms overwhelm users, making it harder to distinguish true emergencies from routine notifications. Often, this stems from poor risk categorization. Instead of addressing root causes through thoughtful design, teams may overuse alarms as a shortcut to satisfy risk controls—adding alerts for unlikely or low-risk events just to “check the box.” Over time, this results in alarm overload, where truly critical issues are buried among non-actionable notifications.

Alarm fatigue occurs when:

• Too many non-actionable alarms disrupt workflow.

• Repeated alarms for the same issue create distractions.

• Poor filtering forces clinicians to respond to every alarm.

As a result, clinicians may ignore or silence alarms, increasing patient risk.

Best Practice. To design systems that minimize alarm fatigue:

• Suppress redundant alarms.

• Ensure proper prioritization so minor issues don’t trigger high-priority alarms.

• Allow configurable thresholds to fit clinical workflows.

Reducing alarm fatigue improves responsiveness, minimizes cognitive overload, and enhances patient safety

Alarm fatigue is an evolving challenge in medical device design, requiring collaboration between human factors experts, engineers, and clinicians. Want to stay informed about the latest strategies for smarter alarm systems? Subscribe to our newsletter to get updates from industry leaders.

An alarm that says ‘Error 47’ isn’t helping anyone.

Mistake #4

Alarm Interfaces That Don't Support All User Types with On-Screen Guidance 

An alarm that says ‘Error 47’ isn’t helping anyone.

Problem. Alarms should prompt timely action, but many systems provide only generic messages, forcing clinicians to:

• Rely on memory or external documentation.

• Search for troubleshooting steps in manuals.

• Consult colleagues, delaying response time.

This is especially problematic for novice users or rotating staff. Medical devices often assume a high level of expertise, but in real-world settings, both experienced clinicians and newer staff (e.g., traveling nurses) must use alarms effectively. Complex, unintuitive alarms increase the risk of error.

Best Practice. Devices should include intuitive, on-screen troubleshooting guidance:

• Step-by-step instructions in plain language.

• Icons, diagrams, or animations for clarity.

• Context-aware troubleshooting that’s easy to understand for users of all experience levels—and clearly communicates the intended next step.
• Progressive disclosure: show critical alarm info upfront while allowing access to more detailed guidance if needed

Embedded guidance helps users fix problems faster and deliver more effective care—especially for novice users navigating unfamiliar alarms.

Example: Traveling Nurses During the COVID-19 Pandemic

During COVID-19, hospitals relied heavily on travel and temporary nurses to manage patient surges. These clinicians often had limited familiarity with site-specific devices and received little formal orientation—making intuitive alarm interfaces and embedded guidance essential for effective patient care.

An alarm shouldn’t block the very data you need to act on it.

Mistake #5

Alarm Systems That Obstruct Critical Clinical Data

An alarm shouldn’t block the very data you need to act on it.

Problem. When alarms activate, they may cover critical clinical data, such as vital signs or waveforms. This forces clinicians to either dismiss alerts or alternate between alarm help screens and clinical data—interrupting their ability to synthesize critical information from the device home screen, alarm interface, and other sources needed to determine the appropriate course of action. The problem is especially pronounced in ICUs, where quick access to a broad range of real-time data is essential for safe, effective care.

Best Practice

• Design alarm displays to prioritize urgent information while preserving access to underlying clinical data—using strategies like repositioning, layering, or collapsible elements.

• Implement status indicators that capture attention without obscuring critical clinical data.

Example: Balancing Alarm Visibility and Interface Usability

Two similar medical devices had different alarm display approaches:

• Device A’s adaptive UI allowed alarms to appear without covering patient vitals.

• Device B used full-screen alarm messages that forced users to shift attention between alarm help content and clinically relevant information—disrupting decision-making and workflow.

Device A’s design proved far more effective by giving clinicians efficient access to all relevant data needed to support clinical decision-making.

Mistake #6

Poor Cross-Functional Collaboration in Medical Device Alarm Design

If your internal teams aren’t in sync, your alarm system won’t be either.

Problem. User feedback is essential to alarm design—but it’s only part of the picture. Even with strong input from clinicians, a poorly coordinated team behind the scenes can derail the system. Alarm design spans multiple disciplines—engineering, regulatory, human factors, and UX—and when these groups work in silos, critical details get lost. The result? Alarms that meet compliance requirements but frustrate users, confuse prioritization, or behave unpredictably in real clinical settings.

Best Practice. Effective alarm design depends on early and ongoing collaboration across internal stakeholders—not just at launch, but throughout development:

• Engineering – To define how alarms behave and respond in real time

• Design and UX – To ensure the interface reflects actual alarm logic and supports clinical context

• Human factors specialists – To balance cognitive load and usability across workflows

• Regulatory experts – To guide safe, compliant implementation

When these groups are aligned, end-user insights can actually be translated into meaningful design decisions—and the result is an alarm system that performs reliably, intuitively, and safely in real-world use.

Good alarm design isn’t just about reducing noise. It’s about building trust—between the device and the clinician, the clinician and the patient, and the team behind the product. By avoiding common design pitfalls and prioritizing usability, manufacturers can create alarms that enhance workflows rather than disrupt them.

Integrating risk assessment, user-centered design, and stakeholder collaboration ensures that alarms support healthcare professionals without overwhelming them. Thoughtful alarm design doesn’t just meet regulatory requirements—it supports safer care.

Want a quick-reference guide to avoid the common alarm design mistakes covered in this article?

Download the poster:

Need help designing better medical devices? Delve specializes in user-focused medical device design, ensuring that every interaction—whether responding to an alarm, navigating a UI, or performing a procedure—is intuitive and effective. Let’s talk. 

For more insights on better medical device design, subscribe to our newsletter.