scholarly journals Operator/system communication: an optimizing decision tool

1991 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tarek M. Sobh ◽  
Tarek K. Alameldin
Author(s):  
E. Leslie Cameron ◽  
Per Møller ◽  
Keith S. Karn

Objective We review the effects of COVID-19 on the human sense of smell (olfaction) and discuss implications for human-system interactions. We emphasize how critical smell is and how the widespread loss of smell due to COVID-19 will impact human-system interaction. Background COVID-19 reduces the sense of smell in people who contract the disease. Thus far, olfaction has received relatively little attention from human factors/ergonomics professionals. While smell is not a primary means of human-system communication, humans rely on smell in many important ways related to both quality of life and safety. Method We briefly review and synthesize the rapidly expanding literature through September 2020 on the topic of smell loss caused by COVID-19. We interpret findings in terms of their relevance to human factors/ergonomics researchers and practitioners. Results Since March 2020 dozens of articles have been published that report smell loss in COVID-19 patients. The prevalence and duration of COVID-19-related smell loss is still under investigation, but the available data suggest that it may leave many people with long-term deficits and distortions in sense of smell. Conclusion We suggest that the human factors/ergonomics community could become more aware of the importance of the sense of smell and focus on accommodating the increasing number of people with reduced olfactory performance. Application We present examples of how olfaction can augment human-system communication and how human factors/ergonomics professionals might accommodate people with olfactory dysfunction. While seemingly at odds, both of these goals can be achieved.


2021 ◽  
Vol 137 ◽  
pp. 7-13
Author(s):  
Tyler S. Kaster ◽  
Simone N. Vigod ◽  
Tara Gomes ◽  
Duminda N. Wijeysundera ◽  
Daniel M. Blumberger ◽  
...  

2006 ◽  
Vol 98 (3) ◽  
pp. 496-506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marguerite Olivier ◽  
Jean-Pierre Goffart ◽  
Jean-François Ledent

2020 ◽  
Vol 37 (12) ◽  
pp. 853-854
Author(s):  
Patrick Aldridge ◽  
Heather Castle ◽  
Emma Russell ◽  
Clare Phillips ◽  
Richard Guerrero-Luduena ◽  
...  

Aims/Objectives/BackgroundObjectivesTo assess if application of a nurse-led paediatric head injury clinical decision tool would be safe compared to current practice.Background>700,000 children attend UK hospitals’ each year with a head injury. Research indicates <1% undergo neurosurgical intervention. No published evidence for nurse-led discharge of paediatric head injuries exists.Methods/DesignMethods – All paediatric (<17 years) patients with head injuries presenting to our Emergency department (ED) 1st May to 31st October 2018 were prospectively screened by a nurse using a mandated electronic ‘Head Injury Discharge At Triage’ questionnaire (HIDATq). We determined which patients underwent computed tomography (CT) brain and whether there was a clinically important intracranial injury or re-presentation to ED. The negative predictive value of the screening tool was assessed. We determined what proportion of patients could have been sent home from triage using HIDATq.Results/ConclusionsResults - Of 1739 patients screened; 61 had CTs performed due to head injury (6 abnormal) with a CT rate of 3.5% and 2% re-presentations. Of the entire cohort, 1052 screened negative. 1 CT occurred in this group showing no abnormalities. Of those screened negative: 349/1052 (33%) had ‘no other injuries’ and 543/1052 (52%) had ‘abrasions or lacerations’. HIDATq’s negative predictive value for CT was 99.9% (95% Confidence interval (CI) 99.4–99.9%) and 100% (CI 99.0–100%) for intracranial injury. The positive predictive value of the tool was low. Five patients screened negative and re-presented within 72hrs but did not require CT imaging.Conclusion - A negative HIDATq appears safe in our ED. Potentially 20% (349/1739) of all patients with head injuries presenting to our department could be discharged by nurses at triage with adequate safety netting advice. This increases to 50% (543/1739) if patients with lacerations or abrasions were treated and discharged at triage. A large multi-centre study is required to validate the tool.


2011 ◽  
Vol 137 (9) ◽  
pp. 645-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mehmet Emre Bayraktar ◽  
Makarand Hastak ◽  
Sanjiv Gokhale ◽  
Bhavin Safi

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document