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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |