Key result
Visual-Patient-avatar and Split Screen modalities generate 307 provider statements emphasizing usability and prior training needs.
Why the study?
Vital signs during anesthesia must be perceived and correctly classified by care providers, motivating the evaluation of opinions on Visual-Patient-avatar compared with conventional monitoring.
What are the user perceptions of Visual-Patient-avatar and Split Screen monitor modalities compared to conventional monitors during simulated anesthetic events?
Observational (n=92)
No
What are the user perceptions of Visual-Patient-avatar and Split Screen monitor modalities compared to conventional monitors during simulated anesthetic events?
The Split Screen modality (avatar plus conventional monitor) may generate better situation awareness during critical anesthetic events, though training is required prior to clinical implementation.
May enhance vital sign perception in simulation; leaves open whether it improves clinical outcomes or safety.
BACKGROUND Patient safety during anesthesia is crucially dependent on the monitoring of vital signs. However, the values obtained must also be perceived and correctly classified by the attending care providers. To facilitate these processes, we developed Visual-Patient-avatar, an animated virtual model of the monitored patient, which innovatively presents numerical and waveform data following user-centered design principles. After a high-fidelity simulation study, we analyzed the participants’ perceptions of 3 different monitor modalities, including this newly introduced technique. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to collect and evaluate participants’ opinions and experiences regarding 3 different monitor modalities, which are Visual-Patient-avatar, Split Screen (avatar and Conventional monitor alongside each other), and Conventional monitor after using them during simulated critical anesthetic events. METHODS This study was a researcher-initiated, single-center, semiquantitative study. We asked 92 care providers right after finishing 3 simulated emergency scenarios about their positive and negative opinions concerning the different monitor modalities. We processed the field notes obtained and derived the main categories and corresponding subthemes following qualitative research methods. RESULTS We gained a total of 307 statements. Through a context-based analysis, we identified the 3 main categories of “Visual-Patient-avatar,” “Split Screen,” and “Conventional monitor” and divided them into 11 positive and negative subthemes. We achieved substantial interrater reliability in assigning the statements to 1 of the topics. Most of the statements concerned the design and usability features of the avatar or the Split Screen mode. CONCLUSIONS This study semiquantitatively reviewed the clinical applicability of the Visual-Patient-avatar technique in a high-fidelity simulation study and revealed the strengths and limitations of the avatar only and Split Screen modality. In addition to valuable suggestions for improving the design, the requirement for training prior to clinical implementation was emphasized. The responses to the Split Screen suggest that this symbiotic modality generates better situation awareness in combination with numerical data and accurate curves. As a subsequent development step, a real-life introduction study is planned, where we will test the avatar in Split Screen mode under actual clinical conditions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akbas et al. (2021) conducted an observational in simulated critical anesthetic events (n=92). Visual-Patient-avatar and Split Screen modalities vs. Conventional monitor was evaluated on participants' positive and negative opinions concerning the different monitor modalities. Care providers evaluating the Visual-Patient-avatar and Split Screen modalities generated 307 statements, mostly concerning design and usability features, and emphasized the need for prior training.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: