Skip to main content
Log in

Effects of Experience and Workplace Culture in Human-Robot Team Interaction in Robotic Surgery: A Case Study

  • Published:
International Journal of Social Robotics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Robots are being used in the operating room to aid in surgery, prompting changes to workflow and adaptive behavior by the users. This case study presents a methodology for examining human-robot team interaction in a complex environment, along with the results of its application in a study of the effects of experience and workplace culture, for human-robot team interaction in the operating room. The analysis of verbal and non-verbal events in robotic surgery in two different surgical teams (one in the US and one in France) revealed differences in workflow, timeline, roles, and communication patterns as a function of experience and workplace culture. Longer preparation times and more verbal exchanges related to uncertainty in use of the robotic equipment were found for the French team, who also happened to be less experienced. This study offers an effective method for studying human-robot team interaction and has implications for the future design and training of teamwork with robotic systems in other complex work environments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M (2000) To err is human: building a safer health system. Natl Academy Press, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  2. Commission to the European Parliament and the Council (2008) Communication on patient safety, including the prevention and control of healthcare-associated infections, COM 836 final, Brussels

  3. Eurobarameter (2006) Medical errors. Special Eurobarameter, 241

  4. Baker GR, Norton PG et al (2004) The Canadian adverse events study: the incidence of adverse events among hospital patients in Canada. CMAJ, Can Med Assoc J 170(11):1678–1686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD (1995) The quality in Australian health care study. Med J Aust 163:458–471

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gawande AA, Thomas EJ, Zinner MJ, Brennan TA (1999) The incidence and nature of surgical adverse events in Colorado and Utah in 1992. Surgery 126(1):66–75

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Landrigan CP, Parry GJ, Bones CB, Hackbarth AD, Goldmann DA, Sharek PJ (2010) Temporal trends in rates of patient harm resulting from medical care. N Engl J Med 363:2124–2134

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Cook R, Woods D (1996) Adapting to new technology in the operating room. Hum Factors 38(4):593–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ballantyne GH (2002) Robotic surgery, telerobotic surgery, telepresence, and telementoring. Surgl Endosc 16(10):1389–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee E, Rafiq A, Merrell R, Ackerman R, Dennerlein J (2005) Ergonomics and human factors in endoscopic surgery: a comparison of manual vs telerobotic simulation systems. Surgl Endosc 19(8):1064–1070

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Christian CK, Gustafson ML, Roth EM, Sheridan TB, Gandhi TK, Dwyer K et al (2006) A prospective study of patient safety in the operating room. Surgery 139(2):159–173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, Regehr G, Baker G, Reznick R et al (2004) Communication failures in the operating room: an observational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 13(5):330–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Mills P, Neily J, Dunn E (2008) Teamwork and communication in surgical teams: implications for patient safety. J Am Coll Surg 206(1):107–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Williams RG, Silverman R, Schwind C, Fortune JB, Sutyak J, Horvath KD et al (2007) Surgeon information transfer and communication: factors affecting quality and efficiency of inpatient care. Ann Surg 245(2):159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hughes J, King K, Rodden T, Andersen H (1995) The role of ethnography in interactive systems design. ACM Interact 2(2):56–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Weiss A, Bernhaupt R, Schwaiger D, Altmaninger M, Buchner R, Tscheligi M (2009) User experience evaluation with a Wizard of Oz approach: technical and methodological considerations. In: Proc intl conf on humanoid robots, pp 303–308

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  17. Harris E, Lamonica A, Weinberg JB (2004) Interfacing the public and technology: a web controlled mobile robot. In: Accessible hands on artificial intelligence and robotics education: working papers of the 2004. AAAI spring symposium series. AAAI Press, Menlo Park, pp 106–110

    Google Scholar 

  18. Young JE, Sung J, Voida A, Sharlin E, Igarashi T, Christensen HI, Grinter RE (2011) Evaluating human-robot interaction: focusing on the holistic interaction experience. Int J Soc Robot 3(1):53–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Friedman B, Kahn P, Hagman J (2003) Hardware companions? What online AIBO discussion forums reveal about the human-robotic relationship. In: Proc of SIGCHI conf on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York

    Google Scholar 

  20. Burke JL, Murphy RR, Coovert MD, Riddle DL (2004) Moonlight in Miami: a field study of human–robot interaction in the context of an urban search and rescue disaster response training exercise. Hum-Comput Interact 19:85–116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Fernaeus Y, Ljungblad S, Jacobsson M et al (2009) Where third wave HCI meets HRI: report from a workshop on user-centered design of robots. In: Adjun proc of ACM/IEEE int conf on human-robot interact. ACM, New York, pp 293–294

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  22. Thrun S (2004) Towards a framework of human-robot interaction. Hum-Comput Interact 19:9–24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jentsch F, Hoeft RM, Fiore SM, Bowers CA (2004) A Frenchman, a German, and an englishman… : the impact of cultural heterogeneity on teams. In: Kaplan M (ed) Cultural ergonomics, advances in human performance and cognitive engineering research, vol 4, pp 317–340

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schein EH (1990) Organizational culture. Am Psychol 45:109–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Denison DR, Mishra AK (1995) Toward a theory of organizational culture and effectiveness. Organ Sci 6(2):204–223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hofstede G (2001) Culture’s consequences: comparing values, behaviors, institutions, and organizations across nations, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mutlu B, Forlizzi J (2008) Robots in organizations: the role of workflow, social, and environmental factors in human-robot interaction. In: Proc ACM/IEEE int conf on human robot interact, Amsterdam, NL

    Google Scholar 

  28. Healey A, Benn J (2009) Teamwork enables remote surgical control and a new model for a surgical system emerges. J Cogn Technol Work 11(4):255–265

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nyssen A, Blavier A (2010) Integrating collective work aspects in the design process: an analysis case study of the robotic surgery using communication as a sign of fundamental change. In: Palanque P, Vanderdonckt J, Winckler M (eds) Human error, safety and systems development. Springer, Berlin, pp 18–27

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Wasen K (2010) Replacement of highly educated surgical assistants by robot technology in working life: paradigm shift in the service sector. Int J Soc Robot 2(4):431–438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cao C, Taylor H (2004) Effects of new technology on the operating room team. In: Khalid HM, Helander MG, Yeo AW (eds) Working with comp systems, pp 309–312

    Google Scholar 

  32. Webster JL, Cao CGL (2006) Lowering communication barriers in operating room technology. Hum Factors 48:747–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Marescaux J, Leroy J, Gagner M, Rubino F, Mutter D, Vix M et al (2001) Transatlantic robot-assisted telesurgery. Nature 413(6854):379–380

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ottensmeyer MP, Hu J, Thompson JM, Ren J, Sheridan TB (2000) Investigations into performance of minimally invasive telesurgery with feedback time delays. Presence 9(4):369–382

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Helmreich RL, Merritt AC, Wilhelm JA (1999) The evolution of crew resource management training in commercial aviation. Int J Aviat Psychol 9(1):19–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Guerlain S, Turrentine FE, Bauer DT, Calland JF, Adams R (2008) Crew resource management training for surgeons: feasibility and impact. Cogn Technol Work 10(4):255–264

    Google Scholar 

  37. Gaba DM, Howard SK, Fish KJ, Smith BE, Sowb YA (2001) Simulation-based training in anesthesia crisis resource management (ACRM): a decade of experience. Simul & Gaming 32(2):175–193

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Helmreich RL, Wilhelm JA, Klinect JR, Merritt AC (2001) Culture, error, and crew resource management. In: Salas E, Bowers CA, Edens E (eds) Improving teamwork in organizations, applications of resource management training. Erlbaum, New Jersey

    Google Scholar 

  39. Moray N (2004) Culture, context, and performance. In: Kaplan M (ed) Cultural ergonomics. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 31–59

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  40. Helmreich R, Merritt AC (2001) Culture at work in aviation and medicine: national, organizational and professional influences. Ashgate, Burlington

    Google Scholar 

  41. Meyerson D, Weick KE, Kramer RM (1996) Swift trust and temporary groups. In: Kramer RM, Tyler TR (eds) Trust in organizations. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 166–195

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  42. Bowers CA, Jentsch F, Salas E, Braun CC (1998) Analyzing communication sequences for team training needs assessment. Hum Factors 40:672–679

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sexton JB, Helmreich RL (1999) Analyzing cockpit communication: the links between language, performance, error, and workload. In: Proc of the tenth int symp on aviat psychology, Columbus, OH

    Google Scholar 

  44. Lingard L, Reznick R, Espin S, Regehr G, DeVito I (2002) Team communications in the operating room: talk patterns, sites of tension, and implications for novices. Acad Med 77(3):232–237

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported in part by a Chaire Régionale de Chercheur Étranger de la Région Pays de la Loire award, and a joint summer student research internship from the Ecole des Mines de Nantes and Tufts University. The authors are grateful to the surgical staff at Institut de Cancérologie de l’Ouest, Nantes, France.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. G. L. Cao.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cunningham, S., Chellali, A., Jaffre, I. et al. Effects of Experience and Workplace Culture in Human-Robot Team Interaction in Robotic Surgery: A Case Study. Int J of Soc Robotics 5, 75–88 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0170-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12369-012-0170-y

Keywords

Navigation