Cargando…

Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia information management systems (AIMSs) automatically import real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to anesthetic records, replacing part of anesthetists’ traditional manual record keeping. However, only a handful of studies have examined the effects of AIMSs on anes...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tse, Man-Kei, Li, Simon Y W, Chiu, Tsz Hin, Lau, Chung Wai, Lam, Ka Man, Cheng, Chun Pong Benny
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: JMIR Publications 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32543440
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/16036
_version_ 1783552577970896896
author Tse, Man-Kei
Li, Simon Y W
Chiu, Tsz Hin
Lau, Chung Wai
Lam, Ka Man
Cheng, Chun Pong Benny
author_facet Tse, Man-Kei
Li, Simon Y W
Chiu, Tsz Hin
Lau, Chung Wai
Lam, Ka Man
Cheng, Chun Pong Benny
author_sort Tse, Man-Kei
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Anesthesia information management systems (AIMSs) automatically import real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to anesthetic records, replacing part of anesthetists’ traditional manual record keeping. However, only a handful of studies have examined the effects of AIMSs on anesthetists’ monitoring performance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of AIMS use and manual record keeping on anesthetists’ monitoring performance, using a full-scale high-fidelity simulation. METHODS: This simulation study was a randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design that compared the effects of two record-keeping methods (AIMS vs manual) on anesthetists’ monitoring performance. Twenty anesthetists at a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong were randomly assigned to either the AIMS or manual condition, and they participated in a 45-minute scenario in a high-fidelity simulation environment. Participants took over a case involving general anesthesia for below-knee amputation surgery and performed record keeping. The three primary outcomes were participants’ (1) vigilance detection accuracy (%), (2) situation awareness accuracy (%), and (3) subjective mental workload (0-100). RESULTS: With regard to the primary outcomes, there was no significant difference in participants’ vigilance detection accuracy (AIMS, 56.7% vs manual, 56.7%; P=.50), and subjective mental workload was significantly lower in the AIMS condition than in the manual condition (AIMS, 34.2 vs manual, 46.7; P=.02). However, the result for situation awareness accuracy was inconclusive as the study did not have enough power to detect a difference between the two conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is promising for AIMS use to become a mainstay of anesthesia record keeping. AIMSs are effective in reducing anesthetists’ workload and improving the quality of their anesthetic record keeping, without compromising vigilance.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7327599
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher JMIR Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73275992020-07-06 Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study Tse, Man-Kei Li, Simon Y W Chiu, Tsz Hin Lau, Chung Wai Lam, Ka Man Cheng, Chun Pong Benny JMIR Hum Factors Original Paper BACKGROUND: Anesthesia information management systems (AIMSs) automatically import real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to anesthetic records, replacing part of anesthetists’ traditional manual record keeping. However, only a handful of studies have examined the effects of AIMSs on anesthetists’ monitoring performance. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the effects of AIMS use and manual record keeping on anesthetists’ monitoring performance, using a full-scale high-fidelity simulation. METHODS: This simulation study was a randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design that compared the effects of two record-keeping methods (AIMS vs manual) on anesthetists’ monitoring performance. Twenty anesthetists at a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong were randomly assigned to either the AIMS or manual condition, and they participated in a 45-minute scenario in a high-fidelity simulation environment. Participants took over a case involving general anesthesia for below-knee amputation surgery and performed record keeping. The three primary outcomes were participants’ (1) vigilance detection accuracy (%), (2) situation awareness accuracy (%), and (3) subjective mental workload (0-100). RESULTS: With regard to the primary outcomes, there was no significant difference in participants’ vigilance detection accuracy (AIMS, 56.7% vs manual, 56.7%; P=.50), and subjective mental workload was significantly lower in the AIMS condition than in the manual condition (AIMS, 34.2 vs manual, 46.7; P=.02). However, the result for situation awareness accuracy was inconclusive as the study did not have enough power to detect a difference between the two conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that it is promising for AIMS use to become a mainstay of anesthesia record keeping. AIMSs are effective in reducing anesthetists’ workload and improving the quality of their anesthetic record keeping, without compromising vigilance. JMIR Publications 2020-06-16 /pmc/articles/PMC7327599/ /pubmed/32543440 http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/16036 Text en ©Man-Kei Tse, Simon Y W Li, Tsz Hin Chiu, Chung Wai Lau, Ka Man Lam, Chun Pong Benny Cheng. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (http://humanfactors.jmir.org), 16.06.2020. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Human Factors, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://humanfactors.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
spellingShingle Original Paper
Tse, Man-Kei
Li, Simon Y W
Chiu, Tsz Hin
Lau, Chung Wai
Lam, Ka Man
Cheng, Chun Pong Benny
Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study
title Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study
title_full Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study
title_fullStr Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study
title_short Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study
title_sort comparison of the effects of automated and manual record keeping on anesthetists’ monitoring performance: randomized controlled simulation study
topic Original Paper
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7327599/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32543440
http://dx.doi.org/10.2196/16036
work_keys_str_mv AT tsemankei comparisonoftheeffectsofautomatedandmanualrecordkeepingonanesthetistsmonitoringperformancerandomizedcontrolledsimulationstudy
AT lisimonyw comparisonoftheeffectsofautomatedandmanualrecordkeepingonanesthetistsmonitoringperformancerandomizedcontrolledsimulationstudy
AT chiutszhin comparisonoftheeffectsofautomatedandmanualrecordkeepingonanesthetistsmonitoringperformancerandomizedcontrolledsimulationstudy
AT lauchungwai comparisonoftheeffectsofautomatedandmanualrecordkeepingonanesthetistsmonitoringperformancerandomizedcontrolledsimulationstudy
AT lamkaman comparisonoftheeffectsofautomatedandmanualrecordkeepingonanesthetistsmonitoringperformancerandomizedcontrolledsimulationstudy
AT chengchunpongbenny comparisonoftheeffectsofautomatedandmanualrecordkeepingonanesthetistsmonitoringperformancerandomizedcontrolledsimulationstudy