A measure of intraoperative attention to monitor displays

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Vigilance is an important but difficult to measure attribute in anesthesia practitioners. We present a modified standard method to assess intraoperative vigilance toward electronic data displays. The response time to detect a simulated abnormal value on the physiologic monitor was measured. Eight anesthesia residents were studied during 60 surgical procedures. Responses to 439 abnormal values were analyzed. The average response time was 61 ± 61 s (mean ± SD), and 56% of the detections were made within 60 s. However, 16% of the abnormal values were undetected during the 5 min that they were displayed. Response times and the rate of missed events were greater during induction of anesthesia (a time of high workload) than during the maintenance or emergence phases of anesthesia. Response times were shorter during procedures on ASA 1 patients than on ASA 3 patients. The results suggest that anesthesiologists usually quickly detect abnormal values on physiologic monitors and that less attention is devoted to monitors during periods of high workload.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)337-341
Number of pages5
JournalAnesthesia and Analgesia
Volume76
Issue number2
StatePublished - 1993
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Reaction Time
Anesthesia
Workload
Data Display
Maintenance

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

A measure of intraoperative attention to monitor displays. / Loeb, Robert G.

In: Anesthesia and Analgesia, Vol. 76, No. 2, 1993, p. 337-341.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{244db531769a42ba84a389816cb4a52e,
title = "A measure of intraoperative attention to monitor displays",
abstract = "Vigilance is an important but difficult to measure attribute in anesthesia practitioners. We present a modified standard method to assess intraoperative vigilance toward electronic data displays. The response time to detect a simulated abnormal value on the physiologic monitor was measured. Eight anesthesia residents were studied during 60 surgical procedures. Responses to 439 abnormal values were analyzed. The average response time was 61 ± 61 s (mean ± SD), and 56{\%} of the detections were made within 60 s. However, 16{\%} of the abnormal values were undetected during the 5 min that they were displayed. Response times and the rate of missed events were greater during induction of anesthesia (a time of high workload) than during the maintenance or emergence phases of anesthesia. Response times were shorter during procedures on ASA 1 patients than on ASA 3 patients. The results suggest that anesthesiologists usually quickly detect abnormal values on physiologic monitors and that less attention is devoted to monitors during periods of high workload.",
author = "Loeb, {Robert G}",
year = "1993",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "76",
pages = "337--341",
journal = "Anesthesia and Analgesia",
issn = "0003-2999",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A measure of intraoperative attention to monitor displays

AU - Loeb, Robert G

PY - 1993

Y1 - 1993

N2 - Vigilance is an important but difficult to measure attribute in anesthesia practitioners. We present a modified standard method to assess intraoperative vigilance toward electronic data displays. The response time to detect a simulated abnormal value on the physiologic monitor was measured. Eight anesthesia residents were studied during 60 surgical procedures. Responses to 439 abnormal values were analyzed. The average response time was 61 ± 61 s (mean ± SD), and 56% of the detections were made within 60 s. However, 16% of the abnormal values were undetected during the 5 min that they were displayed. Response times and the rate of missed events were greater during induction of anesthesia (a time of high workload) than during the maintenance or emergence phases of anesthesia. Response times were shorter during procedures on ASA 1 patients than on ASA 3 patients. The results suggest that anesthesiologists usually quickly detect abnormal values on physiologic monitors and that less attention is devoted to monitors during periods of high workload.

AB - Vigilance is an important but difficult to measure attribute in anesthesia practitioners. We present a modified standard method to assess intraoperative vigilance toward electronic data displays. The response time to detect a simulated abnormal value on the physiologic monitor was measured. Eight anesthesia residents were studied during 60 surgical procedures. Responses to 439 abnormal values were analyzed. The average response time was 61 ± 61 s (mean ± SD), and 56% of the detections were made within 60 s. However, 16% of the abnormal values were undetected during the 5 min that they were displayed. Response times and the rate of missed events were greater during induction of anesthesia (a time of high workload) than during the maintenance or emergence phases of anesthesia. Response times were shorter during procedures on ASA 1 patients than on ASA 3 patients. The results suggest that anesthesiologists usually quickly detect abnormal values on physiologic monitors and that less attention is devoted to monitors during periods of high workload.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027408335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027408335&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 8424512

AN - SCOPUS:0027408335

VL - 76

SP - 337

EP - 341

JO - Anesthesia and Analgesia

JF - Anesthesia and Analgesia

SN - 0003-2999

IS - 2

ER -