scholarly journals It’s not you, it’s the design - common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

Author(s):  
David Tscholl ◽  
Lucas Handschin ◽  
Julian Rössler ◽  
Mona Weiss ◽  
Donat R. Spahn ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Patient monitoring is critical for perioperative patient safety as anesthesiologists routinely make crucial therapeutic decisions from the information displayed on patient monitors. Previous research has shown that today's patient monitoring has room for improvement in areas such as information overload and alarm fatigue. The rationale of this study was to learn more about the problems anesthesiologists face in patient monitoring and to derive improvement suggestions for next-generation patient monitors. METHODS We conducted a two-center qualitative/quantitative study. Initially, we interviewed 120 anesthesiologists (physicians and nurses) about the topic: common problems with patient monitoring in your daily work. Through deductive and inductive coding, we identified major topics and sub themes from the interviews. In a second step, a field survey, a separate group of 25 anesthesiologists rated their agree- or disagreement with central statements created for all identified major topics. RESULTS We identified the following six main topics: 1. "Alarms," 2. "Artifacts," 3. "Software," 4. "Hardware," 5. "Human Factors," 6. "System Factors," and 17 sub themes. The central statements rated for the major topics were: 1. “problems with alarm settings complicate patient monitoring.” (96% agreed) 2. “artifacts complicate the assessment of the situation.” (56% agreed) 3. “information overload makes it difficult to get an overview quickly.” (56% agreed) 4. “problems with cables complicate working with patient monitors.” (88% agreed) 5. “factors related to human performance lead to critical information not being perceived.” (64% agreed) 6. “Switching between monitors from different manufacturers is difficult.” (88% agreed). The ratings of all statements differed significantly from neutral opinion (all p<0.03). CONCLUSION This study provides an overview of the problems anesthesiologists face in patient monitoring. Some of the issues, to our knowledge, were not previously identified as common problems in patient monitoring, e.g., hardware problems (e.g., cable entanglement and worn connectors), human factor aspects (e.g., fatigue and distractions), and systemic factor aspects (e.g., insufficient standardization between manufacturers). An ideal monitor should transfer the relevant patient monitoring information as efficiently as possible, prevent false positive alarms, and use technologies designed to improve the problems in patient monitoring.

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Tscholl ◽  
Lucas Handschin ◽  
Julian Rössler ◽  
Mona Weiss ◽  
Donat R. Spahn ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND Patient monitoring is critical for perioperative patient safety as anesthesiologists routinely make crucial therapeutic decisions of the information displayed on patient monitors. Research has shown that today's patient monitoring provides room for improvement regarding known issues such as information overload and alarm fatigue. The rationale for this study was to learn more about the problems anesthesiologists face with patient monitors and to provide improvement suggestions for next-generation patient monitoring. METHODS We conducted a two-center qualitative and quantitative study. First, we interviewed 120 anesthesiologists (physicians and nurses) about the topic: "Common problems with patient monitoring in your daily work." Through deductive and inductive coding, we identified themes and subthemes from the interviews. Secondly, we conducted a field survey with a separate group of 25 anesthesiologists who rated their agree- or disagreement with central statements based on the themes identified from the interviews. RESULTS We identified the following six main topics: 1. "Alarms," 2. "Artifacts," 3. "Software," 4. "Hardware," 5. "Human Factors," 6. "System Factors," and 17 sub-topics. The central statements based on each major theme were: 1. “problems with alarm settings complicate the work with patient monitoring.” (96% agreed) 2. “artifacts complicate the assessment of the patient's condition.” (56% agreed) 3. “information overload makes it difficult to get a quick overview of the situation.” (56% agreed) 4. “problems with cables make working with patient monitors tedious.” (88% agreed) 5. “factors related to human performance lead to patient conditions not being perceived on the monitor.” (64% agreed) 6. “Insufficient standardization: Switching back and forth between monitors from different manufacturers makes it difficult to work with patient monitors.” (88% agreed). All statements differed significantly from the neutral opinion. CONCLUSION This study provides an overview of the problems anesthesiologists face with patient monitoring. Some of the issues identified were previously less known, such as problems with monitor cables (e.g., entanglement and worn connectors), human factors (e.g., fatigue and distractions), and systemic factors (e.g., insufficient standardization between manufacturers). According to our findings, an ideal monitor should reduce false positive alarms to a minimum, use as few cables as possible, and be easy to interpret.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Tscholl ◽  
Lucas Handschin ◽  
Julian Rössler ◽  
Mona Weiss ◽  
Donat R. Spahn ◽  
...  

Abstract BACKGROUND: Patient monitoring ensures the safety of patients in perioperative, intensive care and emergency medicine. There are some well-studied issues, such as alarm fatigue and information presentation. For this study, we use a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach to get a global feel for the problems of users with today's state of the art patient monitoring. METHODS: First, we conducted interviews with 120 anesthesiologists (physicians and nurses) asking them about problems they experience with patient monitors. We then coded the answers into topics and subtopics that we present and discuss. In a second study, a field survey with 25 anesthesiologists, we added a quantitative part in which anesthesiologists rated their agree- or disagreement with statements based on the themes identified in the prior analysis on a five-step ordinal rating scale. RESULTS: We have identified the following six main topics: 1. "Alarms," 2. "Artifacts," 3. "Software," 4. "Hardware," 5. "Human Factors," 6. "System Factors," and a total of 17 sub-topics. The quantitative statements raised for each major theme were: 1. “problems with alarm settings complicate the work with patient monitoring.” (96% agreed) 2. “artifacts complicate the assessment of the patient's condition.” (56% agreed) 3. “information overload makes it difficult to get a quick overview of the situation.” (56% agreed) 4. “problems with cables make working with patient monitors tedious.” (88% agreed) 5. “factors related to human performance lead to patient conditions not being perceived on the monitor.” (64% agreed) 6. “Insufficient standardization: Switching back and forth between monitors from different manufacturers makes it difficult to work with patient monitors.” (88% agreed). Non-parametric testing determined all six statements to differ significantly from the neutral opinion. CONCLUSION: This study provides an overview of the problems users face in their work with patient monitoring. The most annoying issues identified were related to alarms, cables and insufficient standardization between different manufacturers. An ideal monitor should, therefore, have an alarm system that reduces false positive alarms to a minimum, works with as few cables as possible and is easy to learn. This paper shows that there is still much room for improvement in patient monitoring systems.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
David W. Tscholl ◽  
Mona Weiss ◽  
Lucas Handschin ◽  
Donat R. Spahn ◽  
Christoph B. Nöthiger

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Turabian Jose Luis ◽  
Minier-Rodriguez Luis Enoc ◽  
Moreno-Ruiz Sandra ◽  
Rodriguez-Almonte Francis Eliant ◽  
Cucho-Jove Raul ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-148 ◽  
Author(s):  
Silvia Tommaso ◽  
Carlo Cavallotti ◽  
Antonio Malvasi ◽  
Daniele Vergara ◽  
Antonio Rizzello ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Seong Ying Choi ◽  
Nan Zhang ◽  
J. P. Toner ◽  
G. Dunne ◽  
Michael D. Gilchrist

Vacuum venting is a method proposed to improve feature replication in microparts that are fabricated using micro-injection molding (MIM). A qualitative and quantitative study has been carried out to investigate the effect of vacuum venting on the nano/microfeature replication in MIM. Anodized aluminum oxide (AAO) containing nanofeatures and a bulk metallic glass (BMG) tool mold containing microfeatures were used as mold inserts. The effect of vacuum pressure at constant vacuum time, and of vacuum time at constant vacuum pressure on the replication of these features is investigated. It is found that vacuum venting qualitatively enhances the nanoscale feature definition as well as increases the area of feature replication. In the quantitative study, higher aspect ratio (AR) features can be replicated more effectively using vacuum venting. Increasing both vacuum pressure and vacuum time are found to improve the depth of replication, with the vacuum pressure having more influence. Feature orientation and final sample shape could affect the absolute depth of replication of a particular feature within the sample.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document