Manual record keeping is not necessary for anesthesia vigilance

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective. The goal of this study was to determine whether the intraoperative vigilance of anesthesia residents is different when they keep a manual record than when an assistant performs the charting. Methods. A total of 9 anesthesia residents were studied during 36 general anesthesia cases on ASA class 1 or 2 patients. In half of the cases, the resident performed all record keeping. In the other half, the anesthesia record was kept by a human assistant. Vigilance was measured as detection rate and response time for the resident to detect a simulated abnormal value displayed on the physiologic monitor. For analysis, anesthesia cases were divided into stages of induction, maintenance, and emergence. Results. Response times and detection rates were not different when record keeping was performed by an assistant, rather than by the clinician. Shorter cases were associated with longer median response times (i.e., lower vigilance) during the maintenance phase, but only when record keeping was done manually. Conclusions. The results demonstrate that anesthesia residents are equally attentive to an experimental signal displayed on an electronic monitor while manually charting as they are when an assistant keeps the record. This brings into question the contention that eliminating the record-keeping task will result in a reduced level of vigilance.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)9-13
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Monitoring
Volume11
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1995
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Anesthesia
Reaction Time
Maintenance
General Anesthesia

Keywords

  • Anesthesiologists: performance
  • Equipment: monitors
  • Records: anesthesia
  • Vigilance: measures

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine

Cite this

Manual record keeping is not necessary for anesthesia vigilance. / Loeb, Robert G.

In: Journal of Clinical Monitoring, Vol. 11, No. 1, 01.1995, p. 9-13.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ce6671bfa2c048468a10d81d51456a07,
title = "Manual record keeping is not necessary for anesthesia vigilance",
abstract = "Objective. The goal of this study was to determine whether the intraoperative vigilance of anesthesia residents is different when they keep a manual record than when an assistant performs the charting. Methods. A total of 9 anesthesia residents were studied during 36 general anesthesia cases on ASA class 1 or 2 patients. In half of the cases, the resident performed all record keeping. In the other half, the anesthesia record was kept by a human assistant. Vigilance was measured as detection rate and response time for the resident to detect a simulated abnormal value displayed on the physiologic monitor. For analysis, anesthesia cases were divided into stages of induction, maintenance, and emergence. Results. Response times and detection rates were not different when record keeping was performed by an assistant, rather than by the clinician. Shorter cases were associated with longer median response times (i.e., lower vigilance) during the maintenance phase, but only when record keeping was done manually. Conclusions. The results demonstrate that anesthesia residents are equally attentive to an experimental signal displayed on an electronic monitor while manually charting as they are when an assistant keeps the record. This brings into question the contention that eliminating the record-keeping task will result in a reduced level of vigilance.",
keywords = "Anesthesiologists: performance, Equipment: monitors, Records: anesthesia, Vigilance: measures",
author = "Loeb, {Robert G}",
year = "1995",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1007/BF01627413",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "11",
pages = "9--13",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing",
issn = "1387-1307",
publisher = "Springer Netherlands",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Manual record keeping is not necessary for anesthesia vigilance

AU - Loeb, Robert G

PY - 1995/1

Y1 - 1995/1

N2 - Objective. The goal of this study was to determine whether the intraoperative vigilance of anesthesia residents is different when they keep a manual record than when an assistant performs the charting. Methods. A total of 9 anesthesia residents were studied during 36 general anesthesia cases on ASA class 1 or 2 patients. In half of the cases, the resident performed all record keeping. In the other half, the anesthesia record was kept by a human assistant. Vigilance was measured as detection rate and response time for the resident to detect a simulated abnormal value displayed on the physiologic monitor. For analysis, anesthesia cases were divided into stages of induction, maintenance, and emergence. Results. Response times and detection rates were not different when record keeping was performed by an assistant, rather than by the clinician. Shorter cases were associated with longer median response times (i.e., lower vigilance) during the maintenance phase, but only when record keeping was done manually. Conclusions. The results demonstrate that anesthesia residents are equally attentive to an experimental signal displayed on an electronic monitor while manually charting as they are when an assistant keeps the record. This brings into question the contention that eliminating the record-keeping task will result in a reduced level of vigilance.

AB - Objective. The goal of this study was to determine whether the intraoperative vigilance of anesthesia residents is different when they keep a manual record than when an assistant performs the charting. Methods. A total of 9 anesthesia residents were studied during 36 general anesthesia cases on ASA class 1 or 2 patients. In half of the cases, the resident performed all record keeping. In the other half, the anesthesia record was kept by a human assistant. Vigilance was measured as detection rate and response time for the resident to detect a simulated abnormal value displayed on the physiologic monitor. For analysis, anesthesia cases were divided into stages of induction, maintenance, and emergence. Results. Response times and detection rates were not different when record keeping was performed by an assistant, rather than by the clinician. Shorter cases were associated with longer median response times (i.e., lower vigilance) during the maintenance phase, but only when record keeping was done manually. Conclusions. The results demonstrate that anesthesia residents are equally attentive to an experimental signal displayed on an electronic monitor while manually charting as they are when an assistant keeps the record. This brings into question the contention that eliminating the record-keeping task will result in a reduced level of vigilance.

KW - Anesthesiologists: performance

KW - Equipment: monitors

KW - Records: anesthesia

KW - Vigilance: measures

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028926503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028926503&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/BF01627413

DO - 10.1007/BF01627413

M3 - Article

VL - 11

SP - 9

EP - 13

JO - Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

JF - Journal of Clinical Monitoring and Computing

SN - 1387-1307

IS - 1

ER -