Background: The purpose of the present study was to develop and validate a multidimensional, surgery‐specific workload measure (the SURG‐TLX), and to determine its utility in providing diagnostic information about the impact of various sources of stress on the perceived demands of trained surgical operators. As a wide range of stressors have been identified for surgeons in the operating room, the current approach of considering stress as a unidimensional construct may not only limit the degree to which underlying mechanisms may be understood but also the degree to which training interventions may be successfully matched to particular sources of stress.Methods: The dimensions of the SURG‐TLX were based on two current multidimensional workload measures and developed via focus group discussion. The six dimensions were defined as mental demands, physical demands, temporal demands, task complexity, situational stress, and distractions. Thirty novices were trained on the Fundamentals of Laparoscopic Surgery (FLS) peg transfer task and then completed the task under various conditions designed to manipulate the degree and source of stress experienced: task novelty, physical fatigue, time pressure, evaluation apprehension, multitasking, and distraction.Results: The results were supportive of the discriminant sensitivity of the SURG‐TLX to different sources of stress. The sub‐factors loaded on the relevant stressors as hypothesized, although the evaluation pressure manipulation was not strong enough to cause a significant rise in situational stress.Conclusions: The present study provides support for the validity of the SURG‐TLX instrument and also highlights the importance of considering how different stressors may load surgeons. Implications for categorizing the difficulty of certain procedures, the implementation of new technology in the operating room (man–machine interface issues), and the targeting of stress training strategies to the sources of demand are discussed. Modifications to the scale to enhance clinical utility are also suggested.

Background Research on intraoperative stressors has focused on external factors without considering individual differences in the ability to cope with stress. One individual difference that is implicated in adverse effects of stress on performance is “reinvestment,” the propensity for conscious monitoring and control of movements. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of reinvestment on laparoscopic performance under time pressure. Methods Thirty-one medical students (surgery rotation) were divided into high- and low-reinvestment groups. Participants were first trained to proficiency on a peg transfer task and then tested on the same task in a control and time pressure condition. Outcome measures included generic performance and process measures. Stress levels were assessed using heart rate and the State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Results High and low reinvestors demonstrated increased anxiety levels from control to time pressure conditions as indicated by their STAI scores, although no differences in heart rate were found. Low reinvestors performed significantly faster when under time pressure, whereas high reinvestors showed no change in performance times. Low reinvestors tended to display greater performance efficiency (shorter path lengths, fewer hand movements) than high reinvestors. Conclusion Trained medical students with a high individual propensity to consciously monitor and control their movements (high reinvestors) displayed less capability (than low reinvestors) to meet the demands imposed by time pressure during a laparoscopic task. The finding implies that the propensity for reinvestment may have a moderating effect on laparoscopic performance under time pressure.

The potential for using road markings to indicate speed limits was investigated in a driving simulator over the course of two sessions. Two types of experimental road markings, an "Attentional" set designed to provide visually distinct cues to indicate speed limits of 60, 80 and 100 km/h, and a "Perceptual" set designed to also affect drivers' perception of speed, were compared to a standard undifferentiated set of markings. Participants (n = 20 per group) were assigned to one of four experimental groups (Attentional-Explicit, Attentional-Implicit, Perceptual-Explicit, Perceptual-Implicit) or a Control group (n = 22; standard road markings). The Explicit groups were instructed about the meaning of the road markings while those in the Implicit and Control groups did not receive any explanation. Participants drove five 10 km simulated roads containing three speed zones (60, 80 and 100 km/h) during the first session. The participants returned to the laboratory approximately 3 days later to drive five more trials including roads they had not seen before, a trial that included a secondary task, and a trial where speed signs were removed and only markings were present. The findings indicated that both types of road markings improved drivers' compliance with speed limits compared to the control group, but that explicit instruction as to the meaning of the markings was needed to realise their full benefit. Although previous research has indicated the benefit of road markings used as warnings to indicate speed reductions in advance of horizontal or vertical curves, the findings of the present experiment also suggest that systematically associating road markings with specific speed limits may be a useful way to improve speed limit compliance and increase speed homogeneity.