Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Take a Load Off: Understanding, Measuring, and Reducing Cognitive Load for Cardiologists in High-Stakes Care Environments

  • Cardiology/CT Surgery (K Gist, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Treatment Options in Pediatrics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

This review sought to highlight the foundational principles of cognitive load for pediatric cardiologists and surgeons in high-stakes care environments.

Recent Findings

Measurement of cognitive load is evolving beyond retrospective and subjective numeric rating scales to include multimodal physiologic measurements that scale with cognitive load. Frequent interruptions, distractions, and task switching that characterize high-stakes cardiology environments increase cognitive load. Excessive cognitive load is increasingly associated with tangible consequences for patients, including medical errors.

Summary

Cognitive load theory is based on the idea that working memory resources are finite. When working memory demands exceed available capacity, such as under high cognitive load, task performance suffers. Psychometric, behavioral, and physiological methods can be used to measure cognitive load. Strategies for reducing cognitive load in high-stakes cardiology environments include increasing automation, improving visualization, leveraging machine learning for clinical decision support, promoting crisis resource management, utilizing simulation, and optimizing human factors/systems engineering.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Nemeth C, Blomberg J, Argenta C, Serio-Melvin ML, Salinas J, Pamplin J. Revealing ICU cognitive work through naturalistic decision-making methods. J Cogn Eng Decis Mak. 2016;10:350–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. 2000

  3. Rothschild JM, Landrigan CP, Cronin JW, et al. The critical care safety study: the incidence and nature of adverse events and serious medical errors in intensive care. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:1694–700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Graber ML, Kissam S, Payne VL, Meyer AND, Sorensen A, Lenfestey N, et al. Cognitive interventions to reduce diagnostic error: a narrative review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012;21:535–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Paas F, Tuovinen JE, Tabbers H, Van Gerven PWM. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educ Psychol. 2003;38:63–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Sweller J, van Merrienboer JJG, Paas FGWC. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educ Psychol Rev. 1998;10:251–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. van Merriënboer JJG, Sweller J. Cognitive load theory in health professional education: design principles and strategies. Med Educ. 2010;44:85–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Sweller J. Element interactivity and intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev. 2010;22:123–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Byrne MD, Kirlik A. Using computational cognitive modeling to diagnose possible sources of aviation error. Int J Aviat Psychol. 2005;15:135–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Yanowitch RE. Joint committee on aviation pathology: IV. Crew behavior in accident causation. Aviat Space Environ Med. 1977;48:918–21.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Helmreich RL. Managing human error in aviation. Sci Am. 1997;276:62–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Barnett A. Aviation safety: a whole new world? Transp Sci. 2020;54:84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Laxmisan A, Hakimzada F, Sayan OR, Green RA, Zhang J, Patel VL. The multitasking clinician: decision-making and cognitive demand during and after team handoffs in emergency care. Int J Med Inform. 2007;76:801–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Pham JC, Story JL, Hicks RW, Shore AD, Morlock LL, Cheung DS, et al. National study on the frequency, types, causes, and consequences of voluntarily reported emergency department medication errors. J Emerg Med. 2011;40:485–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lou SS, Kim S, Harford D, Warner BC, Payne PRO, Abraham J, et al. Effect of clinician attention switching on workload and wrong-patient errors. Br J Anaesth. 2022;129:e22–4. This retrospective observational study defined attention switching, identified continuous EHR use time through audit logs, and measured wrong-patient errors using the validated retract-and-reorder decision rule. Using their definition and stated matrices, after adjusting for patient load and order volume, an increase in the rate of attention switching was found to significantly increase the risk for wrong-patient errors, as well as total EHR time for frontline APPs across multiple surgical ICUs in a single institution.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Yurko YY, Scerbo MW, Prabhu AS, Acker CE, Stefanidis D. Higher mental workload is associated with poorer laparoscopic performance as measured by the NASA-TLX tool. Simul Healthc. 2010;5:267–71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Manor-Shulman O, Beyene J, Frndova H, Parshuram CS. Quantifying the volume of documented clinical information in critical illness. J Crit Care. 2008;23:245–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Held N, Neumeier A, Amass T, Harry E, Huie TJ, Moss M. Extraneous load events correlate with cognitive burden amongst multidisciplinary providers during intensive care unit rounds. In: TP19. TP019 quality, process, and outcomes in acute and critical care. Am Thorac Soc. 2021; A1683–A1683.

  20. Friedman ML, McBride ME. Changes in cognitive function after pediatric intensive care unit rounds: a prospective study. Diagnosis (Berl). 2016;3:123–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Fundora MP, Liu J, Calamaro C, Mahle WT, Kc D. The association of workload and outcomes in the pediatric cardiac ICU. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2021;22:683–91. This retrospective, single-center study performed a regression to study the influence of bed occupancy on orders, length of stay, and mortality. After controlling for a number of factors, it was found that an increased bed occupancy, which was posed as a surrogate for workload, and lower staffing were associated with increased mortality, length of stay, imaging orders, and laboratory turn-around time.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Collins R. Clinician cognitive overload and its implications for nurse leaders. Nurse Lead. 2020;18:44–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ripp J. Cognitive load as a mediator of the relationship between workplace efficiency and well-being. Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2021;47:74–5. An editorial review of contemporary literature regarding the effects of increasing cognitive demand, measured by task load index, on quality of patient care, workplace efficiency, as well as burnout and provider well-being.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Paas FG, Van Merriënboer JJ, Adam JJ. Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Percept Mot Skills. 1994;79:419–30.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Hart SG, Staveland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N (eds) Advances in psychology. North-Holland, Amsterdam; 1988; 139–183.

  26. Hart SG. Nasa-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. Proc Hum Fact Ergon Soc Annu Meet. 2006;50:904–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen AS, Dinzeo TJ, Donovan NJ, Brown CE, Morrison SC. Vocal acoustic analysis as a biometric indicator of information processing: implications for neurological and psychiatric disorders. Psychiatry Res. 2015;226:235–41.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Van Gerven PWM, Paas F, Van Merriënboer JJG, Schmidt HG. Memory load and the cognitive pupillary response in aging. Psychophysiology. 2004;41:167–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Antonenko P, Paas F, Grabner R, van Gog T. Using electroencephalography to measure cognitive load. Educ Psychol Rev. 2010;22:425–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wilson GF, Eggemeier FT. Psychophysiological assessment of workload in multi-task environments. In: Damos D (ed) Multiple-task performance. CRC Press, Boca Raton. 1991

  31. Whelan RR. Neuroimaging of cognitive load in instructional multimedia. Educ Res Rev. 2007;2:1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Brünken R, Seufert T, Paas F. Measuring cognitive load. In: Plass JL, Moreno R, Brünken R, editors. Cognitive load theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2010. p. 181–202.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  33. Klepsch M, Schmitz F, Seufert T. Development and validation of two instruments measuring intrinsic, extraneous, and germane cognitive load. Front Psychol. 2017;8:1997.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Brünken R, Steinbacher S, Plass JL, Leutner D. Assessment of cognitive load in multimedia learning using dual-task methodology. Exp Psychol. 2002;49:109–19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Park B, Brünken R. The rhythm method: A new method for measuring cognitive load-an experimental dual-task study. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2015;29:232–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Jaeggi SM, Buschkuehl M, Perrig WJ, Meier B. The concurrent validity of the N-back task as a working memory measure. Memory. 2010;18:394–412.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Paas FGWC, Paas FGW. Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: a cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol. 1992;84:429–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Paas FGWC, Van Merriënboer JJG. Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: a cognitive-load approach. J Educ Psychol. 1994;86:122–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Ayres P. Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learn Instr. 2006;16:389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. van Gog T, Paas F. Instructional efficiency: revisiting the original construct in educational research. Educ Psychol. 2008;43:16–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Barajas-Bustillos MA, Maldonado-Macías A, Serrano-Rosa MA, Hernandez-Arellano JL, Llamas-Alonso L, Balderrama-Armendariz O. Impact of experience on the sensitivity, acceptability, and intrusive of two subjective mental workload techniques: The NASA TLX and workload profile. Work. 2023. https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-211324.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Wilson GF, Russell CA. Real-time assessment of mental workload using psychophysiological measures and artificial neural networks. Hum Factors. 2003;45:635–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Gevins A, Smith ME, Leong H, McEvoy L, Whitfield S, Du R, Rush G. Monitoring working memory load during computer-based tasks with EEG pattern recognition methods. Hum Factors. 1998;40:79–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Brouwer A-M, Hogervorst MA, van Erp JBF, Heffelaar T, Zimmerman PH, Oostenveld R. Estimating workload using EEG spectral power and ERPs in the n-back task. J Neural Eng. 2012;9:045008.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Howard SJ, Burianová H, Ehrich J, Kervin L, Calleia A, Barkus E, et al. Behavioral and fMRI evidence of the differing cognitive load of domain-specific assessments. Neuroscience. 2015;297:38–46.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Bauer R, Jost L, Günther B, Jansen P. Pupillometry as a measure of cognitive load in mental rotation tasks with abstract and embodied figures. Psychol Res. 2022;86:1382–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Grassmann M, Vlemincx E, von Leupoldt A, Mittelstädt JM, Van den Bergh O. Respiratory changes in response to cognitive load: a systematic review. Neural Plast. 2016;2016:8146809.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Woody A, Hooker ED, Zoccola PM, Dickerson SS. Social-evaluative threat, cognitive load, and the cortisol and cardiovascular stress response. Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2018;97:149–55.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Visnovcova Z, Mestanik M, Javorka M, Mokra D, Gala M, Jurko A, et al. Complexity and time asymmetry of heart rate variability are altered in acute mental stress. Physiol Meas. 2014;35:1319–34.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Visnovcova Z, Mestanik M, Gala M, Mestanikova A, Tonhajzerova I. The complexity of electrodermal activity is altered in mental cognitive stressors. Comput Biol Med. 2016;79:123–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Romine WL, Schroeder NL, Graft J, Yang F, Sadeghi R, Zabihimayvan M, et al. Using machine learning to train a wearable device for measuring students’ cognitive load during problem-solving activities based on electrodermal activity, body temperature, and heart rate: development of a cognitive load tracker for both personal and classroom use. Sensors. 2020;20:4833.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  52. Chen S, Epps J, Chen F. A comparison of four methods for cognitive load measurement. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference. OzCHI '11: The Annual Meeting of the Australian Special Interest Group for Computer Human Interaction Canberra Australia 28 November 2011- 2 December 2011. Association for Computing Machinery. 2011; 76–79.

  53. Gerstle CR. Parallels in safety between aviation and healthcare. J Pediatr Surg. 2018;53:875–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Helmreich RL, Merritt AC, Wilhelm JA. The evolution of Crew Resource Management training in commercial aviation. Int J Aviat Psychol. 1999;9:19–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Zayas-Cabán T, Haque SN, Kemper N. Identifying opportunities for workflow automation in health care: lessons learned from other industries. Appl Clin Inform. 2021;12:686–97.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Zhang J, Gajjala S, Agrawal P, Tison GH, Hallock LA, Beussink-Nelson L, et al. Fully automated echocardiogram interpretation in clinical practice. Circulation. 2018;138:1623–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  57. Hahn J-O, Inan OT. Physiological closed-loop control in critical care: opportunities for innovations. Prog Biomed Eng. 2022;4: 033001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Carayon P, Wetterneck TB, Alyousef B, Brown RL, Cartmill RS, McGuire K, et al. Impact of electronic health record technology on the work and workflow of physicians in the intensive care unit. Int J Med Inform. 2015;84:578–94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Khairat SS, Dukkipati A, Lauria HA, Bice T, Travers D, Carson SS. The impact of visualization dashboards on quality of care and clinician satisfaction: integrative literature review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2018;5:e22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Engelbrecht L, Botha A, Alberts R. Designing the visualization of information. Int J Image Graph. 2015;15:1540005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Workman M, Lesser MF, Kim J. An exploratory study of cognitive load in diagnosing patient conditions. Int J Qual Health Care. 2007;19:127–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Faiola A, Srinivas P, Hillier S. Improving patient safety: integrating data visualization and communication into ICU workflow to reduce cognitive load. Proc Int Symp Hum Factors Ergon Health Care. 2015;4:55–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Pirracchio R, Cohen MJ, Malenica I, Cohen J, Chambaz A, Cannesson M, et al. Big data and targeted machine learning in action to assist medical decision in the ICU. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med. 2019;38:377–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Pinsky MR, Dubrawski A, Clermont G. Intelligent clinical decision support. Sensors. 2022;22:1408.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Park SJ, Cho K-J, Kwon O, Park H, Lee Y, Shim WH, et al. Development and validation of a deep-learning-based pediatric early warning system: a single-center study. Biomed J. 2022;45:155–68. A single-center study that developed and validated a deep-learning pediatric early warning system for predicting cardiopulmonary arrest and unexpected need for transfer to the PICU using retrospective chart review. The system was validated against the pediatric early warning score (PEWS) and was found to be superior.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Jentzer JC, Kashou AH, Murphree DH. Clinical applications of artificial intelligence and machine learning in the modern cardiac intensive care unit. Intell-Based Med. 2023;7:100089. This review article discusses existing and future machine learning applications in the CICU including mortality risk stratification, prognostication, non-fatal event prediction, diagnosis, phenotyping, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram interpretation to decrease provider cognitive load.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Hall KK. Making healthcare safer III: a critical analysis of existing and emerging patient safety practices. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Washington, D.C. 2020.

  68. Graber ML. Reaching 95%: decision support tools are the surest way to improve diagnosis now. BMJ Qual Saf. 2022;31:415–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Ehrmann DE, Gallant SN, Nagaraj S, Goodfellow SD, Eytan D, Goldenberg A, et al. Evaluating and reducing cognitive load should be a priority for machine learning in healthcare. Nat Med. 2022;28:1331–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. DECIDE-AI Steering Group. DECIDE-AI: new reporting guidelines to bridge the development-to-implementation gap in clinical artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2021;27:186–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Rusin CG, Acosta SI, Vu EL, Ahmed M, Brady KM, Penny DJ. Automated prediction of cardiorespiratory deterioration in patients with single ventricle. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;77:3184–92. Retrospective single-center study that developed and validated a real-time algorithm to predict cardiorespiratory deterioration in patients with single-ventricle physiology during interstage hospitalization. The algorithm provides 1-2 hours of advanced warning in 62% of cardiorespiratory deterioration events for the single-ventricle physiology population with minimal additional patient alarms.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Gaba DM. Anesthesia crisis management and human error in anesthesiology. Proc Hum Factors Soc Ann Meet. 1991;35:686–686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Bishop R, Porges C, Carlisle M, Strickland R. Crisis resource management in medicine: a Clarion call for change. Curr Treat Options Pediatr. 2020;6:299–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Carne B, Kennedy M, Gray T. Review article: crisis resource management in emergency medicine. Emerg Med Australas. 2012;24:7–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Rajendram P, Notario L, Reid C, Wira CR, Suarez JI, Weingart SD, et al. Crisis resource management and high-performing teams in hyperacute stroke care. Neurocrit Care. 2020;33:338.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Huffman EM, Anton NE, Athanasiadis DI, Ahmed R, Cooper D, Stefanidis D, et al. Multidisciplinary simulation-based trauma team training with an emphasis on crisis resource management improves residents’ non-technical skills. Surgery. 2021;170:1083–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Gaba DM, Howard SK, Fish KJ, Smith BE, Sowb YA. Simulation-based training in anesthesia crisis resource management (ACRM): a decade of experience. Simul Gaming. 2001;32:175–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Szulewski A, Braund H, Egan R, Gegenfurtner A, Hall AK, Howes D, et al. Starting to think like an expert: an analysis of resident cognitive processes during simulation-based resuscitation examinations. Ann Emerg Med. 2019;74:647–59.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Ghanbari S, Haghani F, Barekatain M, Jamali A. A systematized review of cognitive load theory in health sciences education and a perspective from cognitive neuroscience. J Educ Health Promot. 2020;9:176.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Carayon P, Wooldridge A, Hose B-Z, Salwei M, Benneyan J. Challenges and opportunities for improving patient safety through human factors and systems engineering. Health Aff. 2018;37:1862–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Grayson D, Boxerman S, Potter P, et al. Do transient working conditions trigger medical errors? In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Marks ES, et al., editors. Advances in patient safety: From research to implementation, vol. 1: Research Findings. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2005. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK20465/

  82. Flohr L, Beaudry S, Johnson KT, West N, Burns CM, Ansermino JM, et al. Clinician-driven design of VitalPAD–an intelligent monitoring and communication device to improve patient safety in the intensive care unit. IEEE J Transl Eng Health Med. 2018;6:1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Stansfeld SA, Matheson MP. Noise pollution: non-auditory effects on health. Br Med Bull. 2003;68:243–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Murthy VS, Malhotra SK, Bala I, Raghunathan M. Detrimental effects of noise on anaesthetists. Can J Anaesth. 1995;42:608–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Author notes

  1. Charlotte Schaffer and Evan Goldart contributed equally to this work as co-first authors.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Division of Cardiology, University of Michigan Medical, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Charlotte Schaffer, Evan Goldart, Andrew Ligsay & Daniel Ehrmann

  2. Department of Critical Care Medicine and Labatt Family Heart Centre, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Mjaye Mazwi & Sara Gallant

  3. Department of Paediatrics, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Mjaye Mazwi

  4. Congenital Heart Center at C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital, 1540 E Hospital Dr, Floor 11, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Daniel Ehrmann

  5. University of Michigan Medical School, 1540 E Hospital Dr, Floor 11, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA

    Daniel Ehrmann

Authors
  1. Charlotte Schaffer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Evan Goldart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Andrew Ligsay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mjaye Mazwi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sara Gallant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Daniel Ehrmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Ehrmann.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schaffer, C., Goldart, E., Ligsay, A. et al. Take a Load Off: Understanding, Measuring, and Reducing Cognitive Load for Cardiologists in High-Stakes Care Environments. Curr Treat Options Peds 9, 122–135 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40746-023-00272-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40746-023-00272-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation