%0 Journal Article
%@ 2292-9495
%I JMIR Publications
%V 7
%N 2
%P e16036
%T Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study
%A Tse,Man-Kei
%A Li,Simon Y W
%A Chiu,Tsz Hin
%A Lau,Chung Wai
%A Lam,Ka Man
%A Cheng,Chun Pong Benny
%+ Department of Applied Psychology, Lingnan University, WYL-306, WYL Building, 8 Castle Peak Road, Tuen Mun, Hong Kong, , China (Hong Kong), 852 26167129, simonli2@ln.edu.hk
%K anesthesia information management system
%K automated record keeping
%K vigilance
%K situation awareness
%K mental workload
%D 2020
%7 16.6.2020
%9 Original Paper
%J JMIR Hum Factors
%G English
%X 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. 
%M 32543440
%R 10.2196/16036
%U http://humanfactors.jmir.org/2020/2/e16036/
%U https://doi.org/10.2196/16036
%U http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32543440