Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2440/46298
Citations
Scopus Web of Science® Altmetric
?
?
Type: Journal article
Title: Advanced auditory displays and head-mounted displays: Advantages and disadvantages for monitoring by the distracted anesthesiologist
Author: Sanderson, P.
Watson, M.
Russell, W.
Jenkins, S.
Liu, D.
Green, N.
Llewelyn, K.
Cole, P.
Shek, V.
Krupenia, S.
Citation: Anesthesia and Analgesia, 2008; 106(6):1787-1797
Publisher: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Issue Date: 2008
ISSN: 0003-2999
1526-7598
Abstract: BACKGROUND: In a full-scale anesthesia simulator study we examined the relative effectiveness of advanced auditory displays for respiratory and blood pressure monitoring and of head-mounted displays (HMDs) as supplements to standard intraoperative monitoring. METHODS: Participants were 16 residents and attendings. While performing a reading-based distractor task, participants supervised the activities of a resident (an actor) who they were told was junior to them. If participants detected an event that could eventually harm the simulated patient, they told the resident, pressed a button on the computer screen, and/or informed a nearby experimenter. Participants completed four 22-min anesthesia scenarios. Displays were presented in a counterbalanced order that varied across participants and included: (1) Visual (visual monitor with variable-tone pulse oximetry), (2) HMD (Visual plus HMD), (3) Audio (Visual plus auditory displays for respiratory rate, tidal volume, end-tidal CO2, and noninvasive arterial blood pressure), and (4) Both (Visual plus HMD plus Audio). RESULTS: Participants detected significantly more events with Audio (mean = 90%, median = 100%, P < 0.02) and Both (mean = 92%, median = 100%, P < 0.05) but not with HMD (mean = 75%, median = 67%, ns) compared with the Visual condition (mean = 52%, median = 50%). For events detected, there was no difference in detection times across display conditions. Participants self-rated monitoring as easier in the HMD, Audio and Both conditions and their responding as faster in the HMD and Both conditions than in the Visual condition. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced auditory displays help the distracted anesthesiologist maintain peripheral awareness of a simulated patient's status, whereas a HMD does not significantly improve performance. Further studies should test these findings in other intraoperative contexts.
Keywords: Head; Humans; Respiratory Function Tests; Monitoring, Intraoperative; Equipment Design; Blood Pressure Monitors; Awareness; Auditory Perception; Visual Perception; Data Display; Task Performance and Analysis; Attention; Reaction Time; Anesthesiology; Sound; Research Design; Clinical Competence; Patient Simulation; Computer Graphics; Computer Simulation; Female; Male; Surveys and Questionnaires
Description: © 2008 International Anesthesia Research Society
RMID: 0020080732
DOI: 10.1213/ane.0b013e31817325cb
Appears in Collections:Medicine publications

Files in This Item:
There are no files associated with this item.


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.