BACKGROUND: Workload assessment is an important tool for improving patient safety in anaesthesia. We tested the hypothesis that heart rate, pupil size, and duration of fixation increase, whereas saccade amplitude decreases with increased workload during simulated critical incidents. METHODS:Fifteen trainee anaesthetists participated in this randomized cross-over trial. Each participant used a head-mounted eye-tracking device (EyeSeeCam) during induction of general anaesthesia in a full-scale simulation during three different sessions. No critical incident was simulated in the first session. In a randomized order, workload was increased by simulation of a critical incident in the second or third session. Pupil size, duration of fixations, saccadic amplitude, and heart rate of each participant and the simulator conditions were recorded continuously and synchronized. The data were analysed by paired sample t-tests and mixed-effects regression analysis. RESULTS: The findings of the second and third sessions of 11 participants were analysed. Pupil diameter and heart rate increased simultaneously as the severity of the simulated critical incident increased. Allowing for individual effects, the simulator conditions explained 92.6% of the variance in pupil diameter and 93.6% of the variance in heart rate (both P<0.001). The duration of fixation decreased with increased workload. The saccadic amplitude remained unaffected by workload changes. CONCLUSIONS: Pupil size and heart rate reflect workload increase within simulator sessions, but they do not permit overall workload comparisons between individuals or sessions. Contrary to our assumption, the duration of fixation decreased with increased workload. Saccade amplitude did not reflect workload fluctuations.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Workload assessment is an important tool for improving patient safety in anaesthesia. We tested the hypothesis that heart rate, pupil size, and duration of fixation increase, whereas saccade amplitude decreases with increased workload during simulated critical incidents. METHODS: Fifteen trainee anaesthetists participated in this randomized cross-over trial. Each participant used a head-mounted eye-tracking device (EyeSeeCam) during induction of general anaesthesia in a full-scale simulation during three different sessions. No critical incident was simulated in the first session. In a randomized order, workload was increased by simulation of a critical incident in the second or third session. Pupil size, duration of fixations, saccadic amplitude, and heart rate of each participant and the simulator conditions were recorded continuously and synchronized. The data were analysed by paired sample t-tests and mixed-effects regression analysis. RESULTS: The findings of the second and third sessions of 11 participants were analysed. Pupil diameter and heart rate increased simultaneously as the severity of the simulated critical incident increased. Allowing for individual effects, the simulator conditions explained 92.6% of the variance in pupil diameter and 93.6% of the variance in heart rate (both P<0.001). The duration of fixation decreased with increased workload. The saccadic amplitude remained unaffected by workload changes. CONCLUSIONS: Pupil size and heart rate reflect workload increase within simulator sessions, but they do not permit overall workload comparisons between individuals or sessions. Contrary to our assumption, the duration of fixation decreased with increased workload. Saccade amplitude did not reflect workload fluctuations.
Authors: Christian M Schulz; Erich Schneider; Stefan Kohlbecher; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Fabian Heuser; Klaus J Wagner; Eberhard F Kochs; Gerhard Schneider Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2013-03-08 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Tad T Brunyé; Marianna D Eddy; Ezgi Mercan; Kimberly H Allison; Donald L Weaver; Joann G Elmore Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2016-07-05 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Frederick Schneider; Jan Martin; Alexander Hapfelmeier; Denis Jordan; Gerhard Schneider; Christian M Schulz Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-30 Impact factor: 3.240