A Vibro-Tactile Display for Clinical Monitoring

Dosani, Maryam; Hunc, Kate; Dumont, Guy A.; Dunsmuir, Dustin; Barralon, Pierre; Schwarz, Stephan; Lim, Joanne; Ansermino, J. Mark

doi:10.1213/ane.0b013e31825d638c

Cited by 22 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The PSSUQ has been used in healthcare to evaluate clinical monitoring [46], anesthesia [47], as well as telerehabilitation systems [48]. PSSUQ scores range from 1 to 7, with lower scores representing better perceived system usability.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe design complexity of critical care ventilators (CCVs) can lead to use errors and patient harm. In this study, we present the results of a comparison of four CCVs from market leaders, using a rigorous methodology for the evaluation of use safety and user experience of medical devices.MethodsWe carried out a comparative usability study of four CCVs: Hamilton G5, Puritan Bennett 980, Maquet SERVO-U, and Dräger Evita V500. Forty-eight critical care respiratory therapists participated in this fully counterbalanced, repeated measures study. Participants completed seven clinical scenarios composed of 16 tasks on each ventilator.Use safety was measured by percentage of tasks with use errors or close calls (UE/CCs). User experience was measured by system usability and workload metrics, using the Post-Study System Usability Questionnaire (PSSUQ) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index (NASA-TLX).ResultsNine of 18 post hoc contrasts between pairs of ventilators were significant after Bonferroni correction, with effect sizes between 0.4 and 1.09 (Cohen’s d). There were significantly fewer UE/CCs with SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p = 0.044) and V500 (p = 0.020). Participants reported higher system usability for G5 when compared to PB980 (p = 0.035) and higher system usability for SERVO-U when compared to G5 (p < 0.001), PB980 (p < 0.001), and V500 (p < 0.001). Participants reported lower workload for G5 when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and lower workload for SERVO-U when compared to PB980 (p < 0.001) and V500 (p < 0.001). G5 scored better on two of nine possible comparisons; SERVO-U scored better on seven of nine possible comparisons. Aspects influencing participants’ performance and perception include the low sensitivity of G5’s touchscreen and the positive effect from the quality of SERVO-U’s user interface design.ConclusionsThis study provides empirical evidence of how four ventilators from market leaders compare and highlights the importance of medical technology design. Within the boundaries of this study, we can infer that SERVO-U demonstrated the highest levels of use safety and user experience, followed by G5. Based on qualitative data, differences in outcomes could be explained by interaction design, quality of hardware components used in manufacturing, and influence of consumer product technology on users’ expectations.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13054-016-1431-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to simplifying the visual presentation of monitoring information, there have been other attempts to improve users' situation awareness. One study, e.g., analyzed a vibro-tactile-belt display, which mapped and converted monitoring parameters and their changings into stimulation patterns [19]. Another study, which evaluated the potential of a head-worn display for multiple patient monitoring in supervising anesthetists found that the device improved situation awareness [20].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avatar-based versus conventional vital sign display in a central monitor for monitoring multiple patients: a multicenter computer-based laboratory study

Garot

Rössler

Pfarr

et al. 2020

BMC Med Inform Decis Mak

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 avatarbased 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.

show abstract

“…In addition to simplifying the presentation of monitoring information, as Visual Patient Technology does, there have been other attempts to improve users' situation awareness. One study, e.g., analyzed a vibro-tactile-belt display, which mapped and converted monitoring parameters and their changings into stimulation patterns [28]. Another study, which evaluated the potential of a head-worn display for multiple patient monitoring in supervising anesthetists, found improved situation awareness [29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avatar-based versus conventional vital signs display in a central monitor for monitoring multiple patients: A multicenter computer-based laboratory study

Garot

Rössler²,

Pfarr

et al. 2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 seconds. After each scenario, participants had to recall the vital signs of the critical patients. Perceived workload was assessed with the National Aeronautics and Space Association Task-Load-Index (NASA TLX) questionnaire.Results In the 10-second scenarios, the median number of perceived vital signs significantly improved from 7 to 11 using avatar-based versus conventional monitoring with a median of differences of 5 vital signs, p < 0.001. At the same time, the median NASA TLX scores were significantly lower for avatar-based monitoring (67 vs. 77) with a median of differences of 5 points, p = 0.024. In the 30-second 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 cognitive workload using Visual Patient Technology, compared to conventional monitoring. The technology enabled improved assessment of patient status and may, thereby, increase situation awareness and enhance patient safety.

show abstract

A Vibro-Tactile Display for Clinical Monitoring

Abstract: Anesthesiologists found a vibro-tactile belt to be wearable and usable and could accurately decode vibro-tactile messages in a real-time clinical environment.

Cited by 22 publications

References 18 publications

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

The usability of ventilators: a comparative evaluation of use safety and user experience

Avatar-based versus conventional vital sign display in a central monitor for monitoring multiple patients: a multicenter computer-based laboratory study

Avatar-based versus conventional vital signs display in a central monitor for monitoring multiple patients: A multicenter computer-based laboratory study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About