Background: Patient monitoring is indispensable in any operating room to follow the patient’s current health state based on measured physiological parameters. Reducing workload helps to free cognitive resources and thus influences human performance, which ultimately improves the quality of care. Among the many methods available to assess perceived workload, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) provides the most widely accepted tool. However, only few studies have investigated the validity of the NASA-TLX in the health care sector. Objective: This study aimed to validate a modified version of the raw NASA-TLX in patient monitoring tasks by investigating its correspondence with expected lower and higher workload situations and its robustness against nonworkload-related covariates. This defines criterion validity. Methods: In this pooled analysis, we evaluated raw NASA-TLX scores collected after performing patient monitoring tasks in four different investigator-initiated, computer-based, prospective, multicenter studies. All of them were conducted in three hospitals with a high standard of care in central Europe. In these already published studies, we compared conventional patient monitoring with two newly developed situation awareness–oriented monitoring technologies called Visual Patient and Visual Clot. The participants were resident and staff anesthesia and intensive care physicians, and nurse anesthetists with completed specialization qualification. We analyzed the raw NASA-TLX scores by fitting mixed linear regression models and univariate models with different covariates. Results: We assessed a total of 1160 raw NASA-TLX questionnaires after performing specific patient monitoring tasks. Good test performance and higher self-rated diagnostic confidence correlated significantly with lower raw NASA-TLX scores and the subscores (all P<.001). Staff physicians rated significantly lower workload scores than residents (P=.001), whereas nurse anesthetists did not show any difference in the same comparison (P=.83). Standardized distraction resulted in higher rated total raw NASA-TLX scores (P<.001) and subscores. There was no gender difference regarding perceived workload (P=.26). The new visualization technologies Visual Patient and Visual Clot resulted in significantly lower total raw NASA-TLX scores and all subscores, including high self-rated performance, when compared with conventional monitoring (all P<.001). Conclusions: This study validated a modified raw NASA-TLX questionnaire for patient monitoring tasks. The scores obtained correctly represented the assumed influences of the examined covariates on the perceived workload. We reported high criterion validity. The NASA-TLX questionnaire appears to be a reliable tool for measuring subjective workload. Further research should focus on its applicability in a clinical setting.

Visual Patient technology is a situation awareness-oriented visualization technology that translates numerical and waveform patient monitoring data into a new user-centered visual language. Vital sign values are converted into colors, shapes, and rhythmic movements—a language humans can easily perceive and interpret—on a patient avatar model in real time. In this review, we summarize the current state of the research on the Visual Patient, including the technology, its history, and its scientific context. We also provide a summary of our primary research and a brief overview of research work on similar user-centered visualizations in medicine. In several computer-based studies under various experimental conditions, Visual Patient transferred more information per unit time, increased perceived diagnostic certainty, and lowered perceived workload. Eye tracking showed the technology worked because of the way it synthesizes and transforms vital sign information into new and logical forms corresponding to the real phenomena. The technology could be particularly useful for improving situation awareness in settings with high cognitive demand or when users must make quick decisions. This comprehensive review of Visual Patient research is the foundation for an evaluation of the technology in clinical applications, starting with a high-fidelity simulation study in early 2020.

Background: Maintaining adequate situation awareness is crucial for patient safety. Previous studies found that the use of avatar-based monitoring (Visual Patient Technology) improved the perception of vital signs compared to conventional monitoring showing numerical and waveform data; and was further associated with a reduction of perceived workload. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Visual Patient Technology on perceptive performance and perceived workload when monitoring multiple patients at the same time, such as in central station monitors in intensive care units or operating rooms.Methods: A prospective, within-subject, computer-based laboratory study was performed in two tertiary care hospitals in Switzerland in 2018. Thirty-eight physician and nurse anesthetists volunteered for the study. The participants were shown four different central monitor scenarios in sequence, where each scenario displayed two critical and four healthy patients simultaneously for 10 or 30 s. After each scenario, participants had to recall the vital signs of the critical patients. Perceived workload was assessed with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task-Load-Index (NASA TLX) questionnaire.Results: In the 10-s scenarios, the median number of remembered vital signs significantly improved from 7 to 11 using avatar-based versus conventional monitoring with a mean of differences of 4 vital signs, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2 to 6,p < 0.001. At the same time, the median NASA TLX scores were significantly lower for avatar-based monitoring (67 vs. 77) with a mean of differences of 6 points, 95% CI 0.5 to 11,p = 0.034. In the 30-s scenarios, vital sign perception and workload did not differ significantly.Conclusions: In central monitor multiple patient monitoring, we found a significant improvement of vital sign perception and reduction of perceived workload using Visual Patient Technology, compared to conventional monitoring. The technology enabled improved assessment of patient status and may, thereby, help to increase situation awareness and enhance patient safety.

A new patient monitoring technology called Visual Patient, which transforms numerical and waveform data into a virtual model (an avatar) of the monitored patient, has been shown to improve the perception of vital signs compared to conventional patient monitoring. In order to gain a deeper understanding of the opinions of potential future users regarding the new technology, we have analyzed the answers of two large groups of anesthetists using two different study methods. First, we carried out a qualitative analysis guided by the “consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research” checklist. For this analysis, we interviewed 128 anesthesiologists, asking: “Where do you see advantages in Visual Patient monitoring?” and afterward identified major and minor themes in their answers. In a second study, an online survey with 38 anesthesiologists at two different institutions, we added a quantitative part in which anesthesiologists rated statements based on the themes identified in the prior analysis on an ordinal rating scale. We identified four high-level themes: “quick situation recognition,” “intuitiveness,” “unique design characteristics,” and “potential future uses,” and eight subthemes. The quantitative questions raised for each major theme were: 1. “The Visual Patient technology enabled me to get a quick overview of the situation.” (63% of the participants agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 2. “I found the Visual Patient technology to be intuitive and easy to learn.” (82% agreed or very much agreed to this statement). 3. “The visual design features of the Visual Patient technology (e.g., the avatar representation) are not helpful for patient monitoring.” (11% agreed to this statement). 4. “I think the Visual Patient technology might be helpful for non-monitor experts (e.g., surgeons) in the healthcare system.” (53% of the participants agreed or strongly agreed). This mixed method study provides evidence that the included anesthesiologists considered the new avatar-based technology to be intuitive and easy to learn and that the technology enabled them to get an overview of the situation quickly. Only a few users considered the avatar presentation to be unhelpful for patient monitoring and about half think it might be useful for non-experts.

Am, out of 12 total items); knowledge of critical information (the percentage of critical information items out of 5 total items such as allergies, reported as known by the members of a team); team members’ perceptions of safety (the median scores given by the members of a team on a continuous rating scale); their perception of teamwork (the median scores given by the members of a team on a continuous rating scale); and clinical performance (the percentage of completed items out of 14 required tasks, e.g., suction device checked). METHODS: A prospective interventional study comparing anesthesia teams using the APIC with a control group not using the APIC was performed using a multimethod design. Trained observers rated information exchange and clinical performance during on-site observations of anesthesia inductions. After the observations, each team member indicated the critical information items they knew and their perceptions of safety and teamwork. RESULTS: One hundred five teams using the APIC were compared with 100 teams not doing so. The medians of the team-level outcome scores in the APIC group versus the control group were as follows: information exchange: 100% vs 33% (P < 0.001), knowledge of critical information: 100% vs 90% (P < 0.001), perception of safety: 91% vs 84% (P < 0.001), perception of teamwork: 90% vs 86% (P = 0.028), and clinical performance: 93% vs 93% (P = 0.60). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides empirical evidence that the use of a preinduction checklist significantly improves information exchange, knowledge of critical information, and perception of safety in anesthesia teams—all parameters contributing to patient safety. There was a trend indicating improved perception of teamwork....

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. 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. 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.” (56% agreed) 2. “artifacts complicate the assessment of the situation.” (64% agreed) 3. “information overload makes it difficult to get an overview quickly.” (56% agreed) 4. “problems with cables complicate working with patient monitors.” (92% agreed) 5. “factors related to human performance lead to critical information not being perceived.” (88% agreed) 6. “Switching between monitors from different manufacturers is difficult.” (88% agreed). The ratings of all statements differed significantly from neutral (all p < 0.03). 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.