@Article{info:doi/10.2196/16036,
author="Tse, Man-Kei
and Li, Simon Y W
and Chiu, Tsz Hin
and Lau, Chung Wai
and Lam, Ka Man
and Cheng, Chun Pong Benny",
title="Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists' Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study",
journal="JMIR Hum Factors",
year="2020",
month="Jun",
day="16",
volume="7",
number="2",
pages="e16036",
keywords="anesthesia information management system; automated record keeping; vigilance; situation awareness; mental workload",
abstract="Background: Anesthesia information management systems (AIMSs) automatically import real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to anesthetic records, replacing part of anesthetists' traditional manual record keeping. However, only a handful of studies have examined the effects of AIMSs on anesthetists' monitoring performance. Objective: This study aimed to compare the effects of AIMS use and manual record keeping on anesthetists' monitoring performance, using a full-scale high-fidelity simulation. Methods: This simulation study was a randomized controlled trial with a parallel group design that compared the effects of two record-keeping methods (AIMS vs manual) on anesthetists' monitoring performance. Twenty anesthetists at a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong were randomly assigned to either the AIMS or manual condition, and they participated in a 45-minute scenario in a high-fidelity simulation environment. Participants took over a case involving general anesthesia for below-knee amputation surgery and performed record keeping. The three primary outcomes were participants' (1) vigilance detection accuracy ({\%}), (2) situation awareness accuracy ({\%}), and (3) subjective mental workload (0-100). Results: With regard to the primary outcomes, there was no significant difference in participants' vigilance detection accuracy (AIMS, 56.7{\%} vs manual, 56.7{\%}; P=.50), and subjective mental workload was significantly lower in the AIMS condition than in the manual condition (AIMS, 34.2 vs manual, 46.7; P=.02). However, the result for situation awareness accuracy was inconclusive as the study did not have enough power to detect a difference between the two conditions. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that it is promising for AIMS use to become a mainstay of anesthesia record keeping. AIMSs are effective in reducing anesthetists' workload and improving the quality of their anesthetic record keeping, without compromising vigilance. ",
issn="2292-9495",
doi="10.2196/16036",
url="http://humanfactors.jmir.org/2020/2/e16036/",
url="https://doi.org/10.2196/16036",
url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32543440"
}