Advanced patient monitoring displays: Tools for continuous informing

Anesthesia and Analgesia

Volumn 101, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 161-168

  Sanderson, Penelope M ^a   Watson, Marcus O ^a   Russell, W John ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

^b ROYAL ADELAIDE HOSPITAL   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANESTHESIA; AVIATION; DISPLAY SYSTEM; HUMAN; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT INFORMATION; PATIENT MONITORING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PULSE OXIMETRY; RESPONSE TIME; REVIEW; TECHNOLOGY; VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT;

ANESTHESIA; COMPUTER GRAPHICS; DATA DISPLAY; EQUIPMENT FAILURE; HUMANS; MENTAL PROCESSES; MONITORING, INTRAOPERATIVE; SOUND;

EID: 20744441818     PISSN: 00032999     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1213/01.ANE.0000154080.67496.AE     Document Type: Review

References (70)

1. American Society of Anesthesiologists. Standards for basic anesthetic monitoring, 1993.
2. Tinker JH, Dull DL, Caplan RA, et al. Role of monitoring devices in prevention of anesthetic mishaps: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology 1989;71:541-6.
3. Webb RK, Vanderwalt JH, Runciman WB, et al. Which monitor: an analysis of 2000 incident reports. Anaesth Intensive Care 1993;21:529-42.
4. James RH. 1000 anaesthetic incidents: experience to date. Anaesthesia 2003;58:856-63.
5. Myles P, Leslie K, McNeil J, et al. Bispectral index monitoring to prevent awareness during anesthesia: the B-Aware randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2004;363:1757-63.
6. Brodsky JB. What intraoperative monitoring makes sense? Chest 1999;115:101S-105S.
7. Seagull FJ, Sanderson PM. Anesthesia alarms in context: an observational study. Hum Factors 2001;43:66-78.
8. Watson M, Sanderson P, Russell WJ. Tailoring reveals information requirements: the case of anaesthesia alarms. Interact Comput 2004;16:271-93.
9. Beatty PCW, Beatty SF. Anaesthetists' intentions to violate safety guidelines. Anaesthesia 2004;59:528-40.
10. Vicente KJ. Less is (sometimes) more in cognitive engineering: the role of automation technology in improving patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 2003;12:291-4.
11. Walsh T, Beatty PCW. Human factors error and patient monitoring. Physiol Meas 2002;23:R111-32.
12. Flach JM. Ready, fire, aim: toward a theory of meaning processing systems. In: Gopher D, Koriat A, eds. Attention & performance XVII. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1999:197-221.
13. Bennett KB, Toms ML, Woods DD. Emergent features and graphical elements: designing more effective configural displays. Hum Factors 1993;35:71-97.
14. Sanderson PM, Flach JM, Buttigieg MA, Casey EJ. Object displays do not always support better integrated task-performance. Hum Factors 1989;31:183-98.
15. Buttigieg MA, Sanderson PM. Emergent features in visual-display design for 2 types of failure-detection tasks. Hum Factors 1991;33:631-51.
16. Vicente KJ. Ecological interface design: progress and challenges. Hum Factors 2002;44:62-78.
17. Moray N. Designing for attention. In: Baddeley A, Weiskrantz L, eds. Attention: selection, awareness, and control-a tribute to Donald Broadbent. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1993: 111-34.
18. Milgram P, Kishino F. A taxonomy of mixed reality visual-displays. IEICE Trans Inf Syst 1994;E77-D:1321-9.
19. Kramer G. An introduction to auditory display. In: Kramer G, ed. Auditory display: sonification, audification, and auditory interfaces. New York: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
20. Wickens C, Hollands JG. Engineering psychology and human performance. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2000.
21. Woods DD. The alarm problem and directed attention in dynamic fault management. Ergonomics 1995;38:2371-93.
22. Cook RI. Adapting to new technology in the operating room. Hum Factors 1996;38:593-613.
23. Morris RW, Montano SR. Response times to visual and auditory alarms during anaesthesia. Anaesth Intensive Care 1996;24: 682-4.
24. Lampotang S, Gravenstein JS, Euliano TY, et al. Influence of pulse oximetry and capnography on time to diagnosis of critical incidents in anesthesia: a pilot study using a full-scale patient simulator. J Clin Monit Comput 1998;14:313-21.
25. Cole WG, Stewart JG. Human performance evaluation of a metaphor graphic display for respiratory data. Methods Inf Med 1994;33:390-6.
26. Michels P, Gravenstein D, Westenskow DR. An integrated graphic data display improves detection and identification of critical events during anesthesia. J Clin Monit 1997;13:249-59.
27. Blike GT, Surgenor SD, Whalen K, Jensen J. Specific elements of a new hemodynamics display improves the performance of anesthesiologists. J Clin Monit Comput 2000;16:485-91.
28. Agutter J, Drews F, Syroid N, et al. Evaluation of graphic cardiovascular display in a high-fidelity simulator. Anesth Analg 2003;97:1403-13.
29. Syroid ND, Agutter J, Drews FA, et al. Development and evaluation of a graphical anesthesia drug display. Anesthesiology 2002;96:565-75.
30. Jungk A, Thull B, Hoeft A, Rau G. Ergonomic evaluation of an ecological interface and a profilogram display for hemodynamic monitoring. J Clin Monit Comput 1999;15:469-79.
31. Jungk A, Thull B, Hoeft A, Rau G. Evaluation of two new ecological interface approaches for the anesthesia workplace. J Clin Monit Comput 2000;16:243-58.
32. Wachter SB, Agutter J, Syroid N, et al. The employment of an iterative design process to develop a pulmonary graphical display. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2003;10:363-72.
33. Zhang Y, Drews F, Westenskow D, et al. Effects of integrated graphical displays on situational awareness in anesthesiology. Cogn Technol Work 2002;4:82-90.
34. Reising DVC, Sanderson P. Minimally adequate instrumentation in an ecological interface may compromise failure diagnosis. Hum Factors 2004;46:316-33.
35. Blike G. The challenges of human engineering research. J Clin Monit Comput 1999;15:413-5.
36. Burns CM, Hajdukiewicz JR. Ecological interface design. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2004.
37. Block FE, Yablock DO, McDonald JS. Clinical evaluation of the head-up display of anesthesia data: preliminary communication. Int J Clin Monit Comput 1995;12:21-4.
38. Ormerod DF, Ross B, Naluai-Cecchini A. Use of a see-through head-worn display of patient monitoring data to enhance anesthesiologists' response to abnormal clinical events. Proceedings of the 6th International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC'02). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society, 2002:131-2.
39. Ross B, Ormerod DF, Hyde JP, Fine M. Use of a head-mounted display of patient monitoring data to enhance anesthesiologists' response to abnormal clinical events. 2002 International Meeting on Medical Simulation. Society for Technology in Anesthesia, Santa Clara, CA, 2002.
40. Via DK, Kyle RR, Geiger PG, Mongan PD. A head-mounted display of anesthesia monitoring data is of value and would be used by a majority of anesthesia providers. Anesth Analg 2002; 95:S132.
41. Via DK, Kyle RR, Kaye RD, et al. A head mounted display of anesthesia monitoring data improves time to recognition of crisis events in simulated crisis scenarios. Society for Technology in Anesthesia (STA2003), San Diego, CA, 2003.
42. Stuart GW, McAnally KI, Meehan W. Head up displays and visual attention: integrating data and theory. Hum Factors Aerosp Saf 2001;1:103-24.
43. Wickens CD, Long J. Object versus space-based models of visual-attention: implications for the design of head-up displays. J Exp Psychol Appl 1995;1:179-93.
44. Laramee RS, Ware C. Rivalry and interference with a head mounted display. ACM Trans Comput Human Interact 2002;9: 238-51.
45. Neisser U, Becklen R. Selective looking: attending to visually specified events. Cogn Psychol 1975;7:480-94.
46. Simons DJ, Chabris CF. Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 1999;28: 1059-74.
47. Keller K, Colluci D. Perception in HMDs: what is it in head mounted displays that really make them all so terrible? In: Lewandowski R, ed. Proceedings of the SPIE Aerosense Conference on Helmet and Head-Mounted Displays; Orlando, FL: 1998:46-53.
48. Weinger MB, Englund CE. Ergonomic and human-factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating-room environment. Anesthesiology 1990;73: 995-1021.
49. Sarter NB. The need for multisensory interfaces in support of effective attention allocation in highly dynamic event-driven domains: the case of cockpit automation. Int J Aviat Psychol 2000;10:231-45.
50. Fitch WT, Kramer G. Sonifying the body electric: superiority of an auditory over a visual display in a complex, multivariate system. In: Kramer G, ed. Auditory display: sonification, audification, and auditory interfaces. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1994.
51. Barrass S, Kramer G. Using sonification. Multimedia Syst 1999; 7:23-31.
52. Loeb RG, Fitch WT. A laboratory evaluation of an auditory display designed to enhance intraoperative monitoring. Anesth Analg 2002;94:362-8.
53. Seagull FJ, Wickens C, Loeb RG. When is less more?: attention and workload in auditory, visual and redundant patient-monitoring conditions. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA: HFES, 2001:1395-9.
54. Watson M, Sanderson P. Sonification helps eyes-free respiratory monitoring and task timesharing. Hum Factors 2004;46:497-517.
55. Sanderson P, Crawford J, Savill A, et al. Visual and auditory attention in patient monitoring: a formative analysis. Cogn Technol Work 2004;6:172-85.
56. Watson M, Sanderson P, Woodall J, Russell WJ. Operating theatre patient monitoring: the effects of self paced distracter tasks and experimental control on sonification evaluations. Proceedings of the 2003 Annual Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group (CHISIG) of the Ergonomics Society of Australia (OzCHI2003). St Lucia, QLD: Canberra, ACT: ESA, 2003:128-37.
57. Pashler H. The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998.
58. Sanderson P, Shek V, Watson M. The effect of music on monitoring a simulated anaesthetised patient with sonification. Proceedings of the 2004 Conference of the Computer-Human Interaction Special Interest Group of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia (OzCHI2004). Woollongong, 2004.
59. Spence C, Driver J. Cross-modal links in attention between audition, vision, and touch: implications for interface design. Int J Cogn Ergon 1997;1:351-73.
60. Wickens CD, Liu YL. Codes and modalities in multiple resources: a success and a qualification. Hum Factors 1988;30: 599-616.
61. Sklar AE, Sarter NB. Good vibrations: tactile feedback in support of attention allocation and human-automation coordination in event-driven domains. Hum Factors 1999;41:543-52.
62. Nikolic MI, Sarter NB. Peripheral visual feedback: a powerful means of supporting effective attention allocation in event-driven, data-rich environments. Hum Factors 2001;43:30-8.
63. Reason J. Managing the risks of organizational accidents. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 1997.
64. Lin L, Vicente KJ, Doyle DJ. Patient safety, potential adverse drug events, and medical device design: a human factors engineering approach. J Biomed Inform 2001;34:274-84.
65. Pedersen T, Moller AM, Pedersen BD. Pulse oximetry for perioperative monitoring: systematic review of randomized, controlled trials. Anesth Analg 2003;96:426-31.
66. Duncan PG, Cohen MM. Pulse oximetry and capnography in anesthetic practice: an epidemiologic appraisal. Can J Anaesth 1991;38:619-25.
67. Buhre W, Rossaint R. Perioperative management and monitoring in anaesthesia. Lancet 2003;362:1839-46.
68. Smith AF, Mort M, Goodwin D, Pope C. Making monitoring 'work': human-machine interaction and patient safety in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2003;58:1070-8.
69. Rasmussen J. Risk management in a dynamic society: a modelling problem. Saf Sci 1997;27:183-213.
70. Vicente K. From patients to politicians: a cognitive engineering view of patient safety. Qual Saf Health Care 2002;11:1-3.