Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study

Man-kei TSE; Tsz-hin CHIU; Chuen-ho CHEUNG; Chun-pong CHENG; Ka-man LAM; Chung-wai LAU; Simon Y. W. LI

doi:10.1177/1541931218621135

Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study

Man-kei TSE, Tsz-hin CHIU, Chuen-ho CHEUNG, Chun-pong CHENG, Ka-man LAM, Chung-wai LAU, Simon Y. W. LI

Department of Applied Psychology

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference Proceedings › Conference paper (refereed) › Research › peer-review

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS) allows automatic importing real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to replace anesthesiologists’ traditional manual record keeping. It has been increasingly implemented in operating theater to provide an automated anesthesia record. At least 84% of all residency programs are expected to adopt AIMS between 2018 and 2020 (Stol, Ehrenfeld, & Epstein, 2014). Yet despite the increasing popularity of AIMS, only a handful of studies have examined the impact of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists’ performance (i.e. vigilance, situation awareness (SA) and mental workload). For example, various studies had examined the effect of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists’ vigilance but produced mixed results (Allard, Dzwonczyk, Yablok, Block, & McDonald, 1995; Kay and Neal, 1986; Loeb, 1995; Weinger, Herndon, & Gaba, 1997; Yablok,1990).The current study compared the effects of two recordkeeping methods (automated vs. manual) on anesthesiologists’ vigilance, SA and mental workload.

Original language	English
Title of host publication	Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting
Publisher	SAGE
Pages	593-594
Number of pages	2
Volume	62
Edition	1
ISBN (Electronic)	9781510889538
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621135
Publication status	Published - Sept 2018
Event	2018 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) International Annual Meeting - Philadelphia Marriott, United States Duration: 1 Oct 2018 → 5 Oct 2018 http://cms.hfes.org/Cms/media/CmsImages/HFES-2018-Annual-Meeting-Program.pdf

Publication series

Name	Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting
ISSN (Print)	1541-9312
ISSN (Electronic)	1071-1813

Conference

Conference	2018 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) International Annual Meeting
Country/Territory	United States
Period	1/10/18 → 5/10/18
Other	2018 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) International Annual Meeting is organized by Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) and was held from Oct 01 - 05, 2018 at Philadelphia Marriott Downtown, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Internet address	http://cms.hfes.org/Cms/media/CmsImages/HFES-2018-Annual-Meeting-Program.pdf

Access to Document

10.1177/1541931218621135

Cite this

TSE, M., CHIU, T., CHEUNG, C., CHENG, C., LAM, K., LAU, C., & LI, S. Y. W. (2018). Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting (1 ed., Vol. 62, pp. 593-594). (Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting). SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621135

@inproceedings{18107fa252ea4901a7a134a430ecc778,

title = "Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study",

abstract = "Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS) allows automatic importing real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to replace anesthesiologists{\textquoteright} traditional manual record keeping. It has been increasingly implemented in operating theater to provide an automated anesthesia record. At least 84% of all residency programs are expected to adopt AIMS between 2018 and 2020 (Stol, Ehrenfeld, & Epstein, 2014). Yet despite the increasing popularity of AIMS, only a handful of studies have examined the impact of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists{\textquoteright} performance (i.e. vigilance, situation awareness (SA) and mental workload). For example, various studies had examined the effect of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists{\textquoteright} vigilance but produced mixed results (Allard, Dzwonczyk, Yablok, Block, & McDonald, 1995; Kay and Neal, 1986; Loeb, 1995; Weinger, Herndon, & Gaba, 1997; Yablok,1990).The current study compared the effects of two recordkeeping methods (automated vs. manual) on anesthesiologists{\textquoteright} vigilance, SA and mental workload.",

author = "Man-kei TSE and Tsz-hin CHIU and Chuen-ho CHEUNG and Chun-pong CHENG and Ka-man LAM and Chung-wai LAU and LI, {Simon Y. W.}",

year = "2018",

month = sep,

doi = "10.1177/1541931218621135",

language = "English",

volume = "62",

series = "Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting",

publisher = "SAGE",

pages = "593--594",

booktitle = "Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting",

edition = "1",

note = "2018 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) International Annual Meeting ; Conference date: 01-10-2018 Through 05-10-2018",

url = "http://cms.hfes.org/Cms/media/CmsImages/HFES-2018-Annual-Meeting-Program.pdf",

}

TSE, M, CHIU, T, CHEUNG, C, CHENG, C, LAM, K, LAU, C & LI, SYW 2018, Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study. in Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting. 1 edn, vol. 62, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting, SAGE, pp. 593-594, 2018 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) International Annual Meeting , Pennsylvania, United States, 1/10/18. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541931218621135

Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study. / TSE, Man-kei; CHIU, Tsz-hin; CHEUNG, Chuen-ho et al.

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting. Vol. 62 1. ed. SAGE, 2018. p. 593-594 (Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting).

Research output: Book Chapters | Papers in Conference Proceedings › Conference paper (refereed) › Research › peer-review

TY - GEN

T1 - Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study

AU - TSE, Man-kei

AU - CHIU, Tsz-hin

AU - CHEUNG, Chuen-ho

AU - CHENG, Chun-pong

AU - LAM, Ka-man

AU - LAU, Chung-wai

AU - LI, Simon Y. W.

PY - 2018/9

Y1 - 2018/9

N2 - Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS) allows automatic importing real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to replace anesthesiologists’ traditional manual record keeping. It has been increasingly implemented in operating theater to provide an automated anesthesia record. At least 84% of all residency programs are expected to adopt AIMS between 2018 and 2020 (Stol, Ehrenfeld, & Epstein, 2014). Yet despite the increasing popularity of AIMS, only a handful of studies have examined the impact of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists’ performance (i.e. vigilance, situation awareness (SA) and mental workload). For example, various studies had examined the effect of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists’ vigilance but produced mixed results (Allard, Dzwonczyk, Yablok, Block, & McDonald, 1995; Kay and Neal, 1986; Loeb, 1995; Weinger, Herndon, & Gaba, 1997; Yablok,1990).The current study compared the effects of two recordkeeping methods (automated vs. manual) on anesthesiologists’ vigilance, SA and mental workload.

AB - Anesthesia Information Management System (AIMS) allows automatic importing real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to replace anesthesiologists’ traditional manual record keeping. It has been increasingly implemented in operating theater to provide an automated anesthesia record. At least 84% of all residency programs are expected to adopt AIMS between 2018 and 2020 (Stol, Ehrenfeld, & Epstein, 2014). Yet despite the increasing popularity of AIMS, only a handful of studies have examined the impact of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists’ performance (i.e. vigilance, situation awareness (SA) and mental workload). For example, various studies had examined the effect of automated record keeping on anesthesiologists’ vigilance but produced mixed results (Allard, Dzwonczyk, Yablok, Block, & McDonald, 1995; Kay and Neal, 1986; Loeb, 1995; Weinger, Herndon, & Gaba, 1997; Yablok,1990).The current study compared the effects of two recordkeeping methods (automated vs. manual) on anesthesiologists’ vigilance, SA and mental workload.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072732405&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://toc.proceedings.com/49559webtoc.pdf

U2 - 10.1177/1541931218621135

DO - 10.1177/1541931218621135

M3 - Conference paper (refereed)

VL - 62

T3 - Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting

SP - 593

EP - 594

BT - Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting

PB - SAGE

T2 - 2018 Human Factors and Ergonomics Society (HFES) International Annual Meeting

Y2 - 1 October 2018 through 5 October 2018

ER -

TSE M, CHIU T, CHEUNG C, CHENG C, LAM K, LAU C et al. Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2018 Annual Meeting. 1 ed. Vol. 62. SAGE. 2018. p. 593-594. (Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting). Epub 2018 Sept 27. doi: 10.1177/1541931218621135

Effects of automated versus manual record keeping on anesthesiologists1 performance : A simulation study

Abstract

Publication series

Conference

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this