Comparison of the Effects of Automated and Manual Record Keeping on Anesthetists’ Monitoring Performance: Randomized Controlled Simulation Study

• Main Authors: Tse, Man-Kei, Li, Simon Y W, Chiu, Tsz Hin, Lau, Chung Wai, Lam, Ka Man, Cheng, Chun Pong Benny
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: JMIR Publications 2020-06-01
• Series: JMIR Human Factors
• Online Access: http://humanfactors.jmir.org/2020/2/e16036/

BackgroundAnesthesia 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. ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the effects of AIMS use and manual record keeping on anesthetists’ monitoring performance, using a full-scale high-fidelity simulation. MethodsThis 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). ResultsWith 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. ConclusionsOur 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.