Anesthesia personnel's visual attention regarding patient monitoring in simulated non-critical and critical situations, an eye-tracking study.

BACKGROUND: Cognitive ergonomics design of patient monitoring may reduce human factor errors in high-stress environments. Eye-tracking is a suitable tool to gain insight into the distribution of visual attention of healthcare professionals with patient monitors, which may facilitate their further development. METHODS: This prospective, exploratory, high-fidelity simulation study compared anesthesia personnel's visual attention (fixation count and dwell-time) to 15 areas of interest on the patient monitor during non-critical and critical anesthesia situations. Furthermore, we examined the extent to which participants' experience influenced visual attention and which vital signs displayed on the patient monitor received the most visual attention. We used mixed zero-inflated Poisson regression and mixed linear models to analyze the data. RESULTS: Analyzing 23 ten-minute scenarios, we found significantly more fixations to the areas of interest on the patient monitor during critical than non-critical situations (rate ratio of 1.45; 95% CI 1.33 to 1.59; p < 0.001). However, the dwell-time on the areas of interest did not significantly differ between the non-critical and critical situations (coefficient of - 1.667; 95% CI - 4.549 to 1.229; p = 0.27). The professional experience did not significantly influence the visual attention (fixation: rate ratio of 0.88; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.43; p = 0.61 and dwell-time: coefficient of 0.889; 95% CI - 1.465 to 3.229; p = 0.27). Over all situations, anesthesia personnel paid the most attention to the vital signs blood pressure (fixation: mean [SD] of 108 [74.83]; dwell-time: mean [SD] of 27 [15.90] seconds), end-expiratory carbon dioxide (fixation: mean [SD] of 59 [47.39]; dwell-time: mean [SD] of 30 [21.51] seconds), and the electrocardiogram (fixation: mean [SD] of 58 [64.70]; dwell-time: mean [SD] of 15 [14.95] seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Critical anesthesia situations increased anesthesia personnel's visual interaction with the patient monitor. Furthermore, we found that their visual attention focused mainly on a few vital signs. To assist clinicians in critical situations, manufacturers should optimize monitors to convey necessary information as easily and quickly as possible and optimize the visibility of less frequently observed but equally critical vital signs, especially when they are in an abnormal range.

Avatar-based patient monitoring in critical anaesthesia events: a randomised high-fidelity simulation study.

BACKGROUND: Failures in situation awareness cause two-thirds of anaesthesia complications. Avatar-based patient monitoring may promote situation awareness in critical situations. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, randomised, high-fidelity simulation study powered for non-inferiority. We used video analysis to grade anaesthesia teams managing three 10 min emergency scenarios using three randomly assigned monitoring modalities: only conventional, only avatar, and split-screen showing both modalities side by side. The primary outcome was time to performance of critical tasks. Secondary outcomes were time to verbalisation of vital sign deviations and the correct cause of the emergency, perceived workload, and usability. We used mixed Cox and linear regression models adjusted for various potential confounders. The non-inferiority margin was 10%, or hazard ratio (HR) 0.9. RESULTS: We analysed 52 teams performing 154 simulations. For performance of critical tasks during a scenario, split-screen was non-inferior to conventional (HR=1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.33; not significant in test for superiority); the result for avatar was inconclusive (HR=0.98; 95% CI, 0.83-1.15). Avatar was associated with a higher probability for verbalisation of the cause of the emergency (HR=1.78; 95% CI, 1.13-2.81; P=0.012). We found no evidence for a monitor effect on perceived workload. Perceived usability was lower for avatar (coefficient=-23.0; 95% CI, -27.2 to -18.8; P<0.0001) and split-screen (-6.7; 95% CI, -10.9 to -2.4; P=0.002) compared with conventional. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed non-inferiority of split-screen compared with conventional monitoring for performance of critical tasks during anaesthesia crisis situations. The patient avatar improved verbalisation of the correct cause of the emergency. These results should be interpreted considering participants' minimal avatar but extensive conventional monitoring experience.