BACKGROUND: Patient monitoring displays are designed to improve patient safety, and yet little is known about how anesthesiologists interact with these displays. Previous studies of clinician behavior used an observer in the operating room, which may have altered behavior. We describe a covert observation technique to determine how often and for how long anesthesiologists actually look at the monitoring display during different segments of the maintenance phase of anesthesia, and to determine whether this changed with more than 1 anesthesia provider or during concomitant activities such as reading. METHODS: Five staff anesthesiologists, 2 anesthesia fellows, 3 anesthesia residents, and 2 medical students were covertly videotaped across 10 dual anesthesia provider cases and 10 solo cases. Videotapes were later segmented (5 minutes postinduction [early maintenance], mid-maintenance, and immediately before the drapes came down [late maintenance]) and coded for looking behavior at the patient monitor, anesthesia chart, and other reading material. RESULTS: Anesthesiologists looked at the monitor in 1- to 2-second glances, performed frequently throughout the 3 segments of maintenance anesthesia. Overall, the patient monitor was looked at only 5 of the analyzed time, which is less than has previously been reported. Monitoring behavior was constant across the segments of maintenance anesthesia and was not significantly affected by the number of anesthesia providers or role (trainee vs. senior). In contrast, charting behavior and other reading material viewing changed significantly over the analyzed segments of maintenance anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of "at-a-glance monitoring" has implications for the design of patient monitoring displays. Displays should be developed to optimize the information obtained from brief glances at the monitor.
BACKGROUND:Patient monitoring displays are designed to improve patient safety, and yet little is known about how anesthesiologists interact with these displays. Previous studies of clinician behavior used an observer in the operating room, which may have altered behavior. We describe a covert observation technique to determine how often and for how long anesthesiologists actually look at the monitoring display during different segments of the maintenance phase of anesthesia, and to determine whether this changed with more than 1 anesthesia provider or during concomitant activities such as reading. METHODS: Five staff anesthesiologists, 2 anesthesia fellows, 3 anesthesia residents, and 2 medical students were covertly videotaped across 10 dual anesthesia provider cases and 10 solo cases. Videotapes were later segmented (5 minutes postinduction [early maintenance], mid-maintenance, and immediately before the drapes came down [late maintenance]) and coded for looking behavior at the patient monitor, anesthesia chart, and other reading material. RESULTS: Anesthesiologists looked at the monitor in 1- to 2-second glances, performed frequently throughout the 3 segments of maintenance anesthesia. Overall, the patient monitor was looked at only 5 of the analyzed time, which is less than has previously been reported. Monitoring behavior was constant across the segments of maintenance anesthesia and was not significantly affected by the number of anesthesia providers or role (trainee vs. senior). In contrast, charting behavior and other reading material viewing changed significantly over the analyzed segments of maintenance anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of "at-a-glance monitoring" has implications for the design of patient monitoring displays. Displays should be developed to optimize the information obtained from brief glances at the monitor.
Authors: Mary V Carroll; Judy Chang; Jaime E Sidani; Tracey E Barnett; Eric Soule; Edith Balbach; Brian A Primack Journal: Nicotine Tob Res Date: 2014-06-27 Impact factor: 4.244
Authors: Evismar Andrade; Leo Quinlan; Richard Harte; Dara Byrne; Enda Fallon; Martina Kelly; Siobhan Casey; Frank Kirrane; Paul O'Connor; Denis O'Hora; Michael Scully; John Laffey; Patrick Pladys; Alain Beuchée; Gearoid ÓLaighin Journal: JMIR Hum Factors Date: 2021-05-25
Authors: David W Tscholl; Mona Weiss; Lucas Handschin; Donat R Spahn; Christoph B Nöthiger Journal: BMC Anesthesiol Date: 2018-12-11 Impact factor: 2.217
Authors: Juliane Pfarr; David W Tscholl; Michael T Ganter; Donat R Spahn; Christoph B Noethiger Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-07-17 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Olivier Garot; Julian Rössler; Juliane Pfarr; Michael T Ganter; Donat R Spahn; Christoph B Nöthiger; David W Tscholl Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: David Werner Tscholl; Julian Rössler; Sadiq Said; Alexander Kaserer; Donat Rudolf Spahn; Christoph Beat Nöthiger Journal: Sensors (Basel) Date: 2020-04-09 Impact factor: 3.576