Advertisement

An exploratory clinical evaluation of a head-worn display based multiple-patient monitoring application: impact on supervising anesthesiologists’ situation awareness

  • Paul D. SchlosserEmail author
  • Tobias Grundgeiger
  • Penelope M. Sanderson
  • Oliver Happel
Original Research

Abstract

Purpose

Supervising anesthesiologists overseeing several operating rooms must be aware of the status of multiple patients, so they can consult with the anesthetist in single operating rooms or respond quickly to critical events. However, maintaining good situation awareness can be challenging when away from patient bedsides or a central monitoring station. In this proof-of-concept study, we evaluated the potential of a head-worn display that showed multiple patients’ vital signs and alarms to improve supervising anesthesiologists’ situation awareness.

Methods

Eight supervising anesthesiologists each monitored the vital signs of patients in six operating rooms for 3 h with the head-worn display, and for another 3 h without the head-worn display. In interviews with each anesthesiologist, we assessed in which situations the head-worn display was used and whether the continuous availability of the vital signs improved situation awareness. We also measured situation awareness quantitatively from six of the eight anesthesiologists, by instructing them to press a button whenever they noticed a patient alarm.

Results

The median number of patient alarms occurring was similar when the anesthesiologists monitored with the head-worn display (42.0) and without the head-worn display (40.5). However, the anesthesiologists noticed significantly more patient alarms with the head-worn display (66.7%) than without (7.1%), P = 0.028, and they reported improved situation awareness with the head-worn display. The head-worn display helped the anesthesiologists to perceive and comprehend patients’ current status and to anticipate future developments. A negative effect of the head-worn display was its tendency to distract during demanding procedures.

Conclusions

Head-worn displays can improve supervising anesthesiologists’ situation awareness in multiple-patient monitoring situations. The anesthesiologists who participated in the study expressed enthusiasm about monitoring patients with a head-worn display and wished to use and evaluate it further.

Keywords

Patient monitoring Remote monitoring Head-worn display Situation awareness 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Dr. Michael Neumann, Dr. Frank Kobelt, and the other members of the SMI team of the University Hospital of Würzburg who helped to integrate the HWD into the hospital’s IT systems for their great support.

Funding

The authors declare that they have not received any funding for their research.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The hospital’s ethics committee was informed about the study and on 13 December 2017 we received a waiver that no ethics clearance was required.

Informed consent

was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Supplementary material

10877_2019_265_MOESM1_ESM.docx (16 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 16 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Azuma RT. A survey of augmented reality. Presence: Teleoper Virtual Environ. 1997;6(4):355–85.  https://doi.org/10.1162/pres.1997.6.4.355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cakmakci O, Rolland J. Head-worn displays: a review. J Displ Technol. 2006;2(3):199–216.  https://doi.org/10.1109/JDT.2006.879846.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Liu D, Jenkins SA, Sanderson PM. Patient monitoring with head-mounted displays. Curr Opin Anesthesiol. 2009;22(6):796–803.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0b013e32833269c1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Muensterer OJ, Lacher M, Zoeller C, Bronstein M, Kübler J. Google glass in pediatric surgery: an exploratory study. Int J Surg. 2014;12(4):281–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2014.02.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoon JW, Chen RE, Han PK, Si P, Freeman WD, Pirris SM. Technical feasibility and safety of an intraoperative head-up display device during spine instrumentation. Int J Med Robot. 2017;13(3):e1770.  https://doi.org/10.1002/rcs.1770.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kolodzey L, Grantcharov PD, Rivas H, Schijven MP, Grantcharov TP. Wearable technology in the operating room: a systematic review. BMJ Innov. 2017;3(1):55–63.  https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjinnov-2016-000133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dougherty B, Badawy MS. Using google glass in nonsurgical medical settings: systematic review. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. 2017;5(10):e159.  https://doi.org/10.2196/mhealth.8671.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Endsley MR. Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum Factors. 1995;37(1):32–64.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gaba DM, Howard SK, Small SD. Situation awareness in anesthesiology. Hum Factors. 1995;37(1):20–31.  https://doi.org/10.1518/001872095779049435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schulz CM, Endsley MR, Kochs EF, Gelb AW, Wagner KJ. Situation awareness in anesthesia concept and research. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(3):729–42.  https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0b013e318280a40f.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Ettinger M, Lipton J, Nelwan S, van Dam T, van der Putten N. (2010) Multimedia paging for clinical alarms on mobile platforms. Proceedings of the Conference on Computing in Cardiology. p. 57–60.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    McFarlane DC, Doig AK, Agutter JA, Brewer LM, Syroid ND, Mittu R. Faster clinical response to the onset of adverse events: a wearable metacognitive attention aid for nurse triage of clinical alarms. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(5):e0197157.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Görges M, Westenskow DR, Markewitz BA. Evaluation of an integrated intensive care unit monitoring display by critical care fellow physicians. J Clin Monit Comput. 2012;26(6):429–36.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-012-9370-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pascale MT, Sanderson P, Liu D, Mohamed I, Brecknell B, Loeb RG. The impact of head-worn displays on strategic alarm management and situation awareness. Hum Fact. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720818814969.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang XJ, Wickens CD, Park T, Fong L, Siah KTH. Effects of information access cost and accountability on medical residents’ information retrieval strategy and performance during prehandover preparation: evidence from interview and simulation study. Hum Factors. 2015;57(8):1459–71.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720815598889.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sendelbach S, Funk M. Alarm fatigue: a patient safety concern. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2013;24(4):378–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schlosser P, Grundgeiger T, Happel O. (2018) Multiple patient monitoring in the operating room using a head-mounted display. Proceedings of the CHI Conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems. p. 1–6.  https://doi.org/10.1145/3170427.3188460.
  18. 18.
    Jonides J. Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. Atten Perform IX. 1981;9:187–203.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101.  https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Boyatzis RE. Transforming qualitative information: thematic analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1998.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sanderson P. The multimodal world of medical monitoring displays. Appl Ergon. 2006;37(4):501–12.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2006.04.022.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Durso FT, Hackworth CA, Truitt TR, Crutchfield J, Nikolic D, Manning CA. Situation awareness as a predictor of performance for en route air traffic controllers. Air Traffic Control Q. 1998;6(1):1–20.  https://doi.org/10.2514/atcq.6.1.1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    McDaniel MA, Einstein GO. Prospective memory: an overview and synthesis of an emerging field. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 2007.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Graham KC, Cvach M. Monitor alarm fatigue: standardizing use of physiological monitors and decreasing nuisance alarms. Am J Crit Care. 2010;19(1):28–34.  https://doi.org/10.4037/ajcc2010651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul D. Schlosser
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tobias Grundgeiger
    • 1
  • Penelope M. Sanderson
    • 2
  • Oliver Happel
    • 3
  1. 1.Institute Human-Computer-MediaJulius-Maximilians-Universität WürzburgWürzburgGermany
  2. 2.Schools of Psychology, ITEE, and Clinical MedicineThe University of QueenslandSt. LuciaAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Anesthesia and Critical CareUniversity Hospital of WürzburgWürzburgGermany

Personalised recommendations