Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 311–316 | Cite as

Hidden Aspects of the Anaesthesia Chart



Anaesthesia is a complex task operating in an uncertain environment. Part of the problem is that many of the technologies developed to assist the anaesthesiologist hinder rather than help, because of increased complexity. We conducted an analysis of the domain in view of redesigning the anaesthesia chart as a digital artefact. We used an ethnographic approach that uncovered aspects of the anaesthesiologist’s practice, as well as the fact that the chart was not used as a tool, because of its legal status.


anaesthesia cognitive ergonomics cognitive engineering ethnography anaesthesia chart distributed cognition 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Gaba DM. Human performance in dynamic medical domains. In: Bogner MS, (eds), Human eror in medicine. Erlbaum: Hillsdale, NJ, 1994:197–224Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beatty P. Advances in patient monitoring. In: Weissberg P, (eds), Horizons in medicine. Royal college of physicians of London: London, 2000: 395–407Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Weiss YG, et al. Computer assisted physiologic monitoring and stability assessment in vascular surgical patients undergoind general anesthesia preliminary data. J Clin Monit Comput 2000;16:107–113PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cooper JB, et al. Preventable anesthesia mishaps: a study of human factors. Anesthesiology 1978; 49(6): 399–406PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Held J, et al. Ergonomics in anaesthesia. In XIth Annual international occupational ergonomics and safety conference. 1996; ZurichGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marmaras N, Lykogianni A. Human error analysis in anaesthesia. In Proceedings of the 12th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association. Toronto: HFAC. 1994; 377–380Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Marmaras N, Maliagrou M. Evaluation of operating rooms from an Anaesthesiologist’s reliability perspective. In: Ozok A, Salvendy G, eds, Advances in applied ergonomics. USA Publishing Corp: W. Lafayette, 1996: 937–940Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cook R, Woods DD, McDonald J. Human performance in anesthesia. 1991Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Keyser V, Nyssen AS. Human errors in anesthesia. Le Travail Humain 1993; 56(2–3): 243–266Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mora FA, et al. Intelligent patient monitoring and management systems: A Review. IEEE engineering medicine and biology magazine,1993: 23–33Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Haugeland J. Artificial intelligence: the very idea. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1985Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dreyfus HL. What computers can’t do: critique of artificial reason. Harper: New York, 1972Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang Y, et al. Effects of integrated graphical displays on situation awareness in Anaesthesiology. Cognit Technol Work. 2002; 4: 82–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berg M, Bowker G. The multiple bodies of the medical record: toward a sociology of an artifact. Sociol Q 1997; 38(3): 513–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papantoniou B, Marmaras N. The ambiguous status of a tool: the case of the anaesthesia chart. In: Reed D, Baxter G, Blythe M, eds, Proceedings of the 12th European conference on cognitive ergonomics, 2004; 203–206Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papantoniou B, Marmaras N. Investigating the anaesthesiologists’ practice through externalist and internalist approaches, in EACE2005. University of Athens: Chania, Greece, 2005Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Theureau J. Selfconfrontation interview as a component of an empirical & technological research programme, in II° Journées internationales des sciences du sport “Expertise et sport de haut niveau”. Paris, 2002Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nathanael D, et al. Sociotechnical systems analysis: which approah should be followed? in ECCE11. Instituto di Sienze et Tecnologie dela Cognizione: Catania, 2002Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marmaras N, Nathanael D. Cognitive engineering practice: melting theory into reality. Theor Issues Ergonomics Sci 2005; 6(2): 109–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Simon HA. The sciences of the artificial. 2nd Edition. MIT Press: Cambridge Mass, 1969Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Perrow C. Normal accidents: living with high-risk technologies. 2nd Edition. Princeton University Press: Princeton, 1999Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Xiao Y. Interacting with complex work environments : a field study and planning model. Department of Industrial Engineering: Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 1994Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Cooper JB, et al. Effects of information feeback and pulse oximetry on the incidence of anesthesia complications. Anesthesiology 1987; 67(5): 686–694PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hutchins E. Cognition in the wild. MIT Press: MA, 1995Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Checkland P. Systems thinking, systems practice. John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, 1981Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hughes D. When nurse knows best: some aspects of nurse-doctor interaction in a casualty department. Soc Hea Illn 1988; 10: 1–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nathanael D, Marmaras N. Historical analysis as a means to uncover the dynamics of evolving practices, in Proceedings of the 2005 annual conference on European association of cognitive ergonomics. University of Athens: Chania, Greece, 2005Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Mingers JC, Brocklesby J. Multimethodology: towards a framework for mixing methodologies. Omega 1996; 25: 489–509CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ErgoU, School of Mechanical EngineeringNational Technical University of AthensZografouGreece

Personalised recommendations