Application of a Human Factors Systems Approach to Healthcare Control Centres for Managing Patient Flow: A Scoping Review.

Over the past decade, healthcare systems have started to establish control centres to manage patient flow, with a view to removing delays and increasing the quality of care. Such centres-here dubbed Healthcare Capacity Command/Coordination Centres (HCCCs)-are a challenge to design and operate. Broad-ranging surveys of HCCCs have been lacking, and design for their human users is only starting to be addressed. In this review we identified 73 papers describing different kinds of HCCCs, classifying them according to whether they describe virtual or physical control centres, the kinds of situations they handle, and the different levels of Rasmussen's [1] risk management framework that they integrate. Most of the papers (71%) describe physical HCCCs established as control centres, whereas 29% of the papers describe virtual HCCCs staffed by stakeholders in separate locations. Principal functions of the HCCCs described are categorised as business as usual (BAU) (48%), surge management (15%), emergency response (18%), and mass casualty management (19%). The organisation layers that the HCCCs incorporate are classified according to the risk management framework; HCCCs managing BAU involve lower levels of the framework, whereas HCCCs handling the more emergent functions involve all levels. Major challenges confronting HCCCs include the dissemination of information about healthcare system status, and the management of perspectives and goals from different parts of the healthcare system. HCCCs that take the form of physical control centres are just starting to be analysed using human factors principles that will make staff more effective and productive at managing patient flow.

Signaling Patient Oxygen Desaturation with Enhanced Pulse Oximetry Tones.

Manufacturers could improve the pulse tones emitted by pulse oximeters to support more accurate identification of a patient's peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) range. In this article, we outline the strengths and limitations of the variable-pitch tone that represents SpO2 of each detected pulse, and we argue that enhancements to the tone to demarcate clinically relevant ranges are feasible and desirable. The variable-pitch tone is an appreciated and trusted feature of the pulse oximeter's user interface. However, studies show that it supports relative judgments of SpO2 trends over time and is less effective at supporting absolute judgments about the SpO2 number or conveying when SpO2 moves into clinically important ranges. We outline recent studies that tested whether acoustic enhancements to the current tone could convey clinically important ranges more directly, without necessarily using auditory alarms. The studies cover the use of enhanced variable-pitch pulse oximeter tones for neonatal and adult use. Compared with current tones, the characteristics of the enhanced tones represent improvements that are both clinically relevant and statistically significant. We outline the benefits of enhanced tones, as well as discuss constraints of which developers of enhanced tones should be aware if enhancements are to be successful.

Evaluation of an enhanced pulse oximeter auditory display: a simulaion study.

BACKGROUND: We compared anaesthetists' ability to identify haemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) levels using two auditory displays: one based on a standard pulse oximeter display (varying pitch plus alarm) and the other enhanced with additional sound properties (varying pitch plus tremolo and acoustic brightness) to differentiate SpO2 ranges. METHODS: In a counter-balanced crossover study in a simulator, 20 experienced anaesthetists supervised a junior colleague (an actor) managing two airway surgery scenarios: once while using the enhanced auditory display and once while using a standard auditory display. Participants were distracted with other tasks such as paperwork and workplace interruptions, but were required to identify when SpO2 transitioned between pre-set ranges (target, low, critical) and when other vital signs transitioned out of a target range. They also identified the range once a transition had occurred. Visual displays were available for all monitored vital signs, but the numerical value for SpO2 was excluded. RESULTS: Participants were more accurate and faster at detecting transitions to and from the target SpO2 range when using the enhanced display (100.0%, 3.3 s) than when using the standard display plus alarm (73.2%, 27.4 s) (P<0.001 and P=0.004, respectively). They were also more accurate at identifying the SpO2 range once a transition had occurred when using the enhanced display (100.0%) than when using the standard display plus alarm (57.1%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced auditory display helps anaesthetists judge SpO2 levels more effectively than current auditory displays and may facilitate 'eyes-free' monitoring.

Comparison of Standard and Enhanced Pulse Oximeter Auditory Displays of Oxygen Saturation: A Laboratory Study With Clinician and Nonclinician Participants.

BACKGROUND: When engaged in visually demanding tasks, anesthesiologists depend on the auditory display of the pulse oximeter (PO) to provide information about patients' oxygen saturation (SpO2). Current auditory displays are not always effective at providing SpO2 information. In this laboratory study, clinician and nonclinician participants identified SpO2 parameters using either a standard auditory display or an auditory display enhanced with additional acoustic properties while performing distractor tasks and in the presence of background noise. METHODS: In a counterbalanced crossover design, specialist or trainee anesthesiologists (n = 25) and nonclinician participants (n = 28) identified SpO2 parameters using standard and enhanced PO auditory displays. Participants performed 2 distractor tasks: (1) arithmetic verification and (2) keyword detection. Simulated background operating room noise played throughout the experiment. Primary outcomes were accuracies to (1) detect transitions to and from an SpO2 target range and (2) identify SpO2 range (target, low, or critical). Secondary outcomes included participants' latency to detect target transitions, accuracy to identify absolute SpO2 values, accuracy and latency of distractor tasks, and subjective judgments about tasks. RESULTS: Participants were more accurate at detecting target transitions using the enhanced display (87%) than the standard display (57%; odds ratio, 7.3 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 4.4-12.3]; P < .001). Participants were also more accurate at identifying SpO2 range using the enhanced display (86%) than the standard display (76%; odds ratio, 2.7 [95% CI, 1.6-4.6]; P < .001). Secondary outcome analyses indicated that there were no differences in performance between clinicians and nonclinicians for target transition detection accuracy and latency, SpO2 range identification accuracy, or absolute SpO2 value identification. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced auditory display supports more accurate detection of target transitions and identification of SpO2 range for both clinicians and nonclinicians. Despite their previous experience using PO auditory displays, clinicians in this laboratory study were no more accurate in any SpO2 outcomes than nonclinician participants.