Dataset Information

It's not you, it's the design - common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

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.

Methods

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.

Results

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 ConclusionThis 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.

SUBMITTER: Tscholl DW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6540409 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

It's not you, it's the design - common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

Tscholl David W DW Handschin Lucas L Rössler Julian J Weiss Mona M Spahn Donat R DR Nöthiger Christoph B CB

BMC anesthesiology 20190528 1

<h4>Background</h4>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- ...[more]

PMID: 31138143

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA 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.MethodsFirst, 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.ResultsWe 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).ConclusionThis 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.

Project description:BackgroundGood glycaemic control is a crucial part of diabetes management. Traditional assessment methods, including HbA1c checks and self-monitoring of blood glucose, can be unreliable and inaccurate. Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) offers a non-invasive and more detailed alternative. Availability of this technology is increasing worldwide. However, there is no current comprehensive evidence on the acceptability and feasibility of these devices. This is a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence about acceptability and feasibility of CGM in people with diabetes.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL for qualitative and quantitative evidence about the feasibility and acceptability of CGM in all populations with diabetes (any type) using search terms for "continuous glucose monitoring" and "diabetes". We will not apply any study-type filters. Searches will be restricted to studies conducted in humans and those published from 2011 onwards. We will not restrict the search by language. Study selection and data extraction will be carried out by two reviewers independently using Rayyan and Eppi-Reviewer, respectively, with disagreements resolved by discussion. Data extraction will include key information about each study, as well as qualitative evidence in the form of participant quotes from primary studies and themes and subthemes based on the authors' analysis. Quantitative data relating to acceptability and feasibility including data loss, adherence, and quantitative ratings of acceptability will be extracted as means and standard deviations or n/N as appropriate. Qualitative evidence will be analysed using framework analysis informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. Where possible, quantitative evidence will be combined using random-effects meta-analysis; otherwise, a narrative synthesis will be performed. The most appropriate method for integrating qualitative and quantitative findings will be selected based on the data available.DiscussionOngoing assessment of the acceptability of interventions has been identified as crucially important to scale-up and implementation. This review will provide new knowledge with the potential to inform a programme theory of CGM as well as future roll-out to potentially vulnerable populations, including those with severe mental illness.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42021255141.

Project description:Methodologically sound mixed methods research can improve our understanding of health services by providing a more comprehensive picture of health services than either method can alone. This study describes the frequency of mixed methods in published health services research and compares the presence of methodological components indicative of rigorous approaches across mixed methods, qualitative, and quantitative articles.All empirical articles (n = 1,651) published between 2003 and 2007 from four top-ranked health services journals.All mixed methods articles (n = 47) and random samples of qualitative and quantitative articles were evaluated to identify reporting of key components indicating rigor for each method, based on accepted standards for evaluating the quality of research reports (e.g., use of p-values in quantitative reports, description of context in qualitative reports, and integration in mixed method reports). We used chi-square tests to evaluate differences between article types for each component.Mixed methods articles comprised 2.85 percent (n = 47) of empirical articles, quantitative articles 90.98 percent (n = 1,502), and qualitative articles 6.18 percent (n = 102). There was a statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 12.20, p = .0005, Cramer's V = 0.09, odds ratio = 1.49 [95% confidence interval = 1,27, 1.74]) in the proportion of quantitative methodological components present in mixed methods compared to quantitative papers (21.94 versus 47.07 percent, respectively) but no statistically significant difference (?(2) (1) = 0.02, p = .89, Cramer's V = 0.01) in the proportion of qualitative methodological components in mixed methods compared to qualitative papers (21.34 versus 25.47 percent, respectively).Few published health services research articles use mixed methods. The frequency of key methodological components is variable. Suggestions are provided to increase the transparency of mixed methods studies and the presence of key methodological components in published reports.

Project description:BackgroundAcute bleeding is an omnipresent challenge for all physicians. Uncontrolled hemorrhage is the most common preventable cause of death after trauma worldwide. In different surgical disciplines, hemorrhage represents an independent risk factor for increased postoperative morbimortality, directly affecting patients' outcomes. This study asked anesthesiologists about their personal perceived challenges when treating bleeding patients.MethodsThis investigator-initiated, prospective, international, dual-center, mixed qualitative and quantitative study interrogated anesthesiologists about what they found easy and what difficult in treating acutely bleeding patients. Following the template approach for qualitative research, we identified major and minor topics through free inductive coding and word count. In a second step, we derived ten statements from the participants' answers. Using a field survey, we then asked the participants to rate their level of agreement with the derived statements. We analyzed the answers using one sample Wilcoxon test and the Mann-Whitney test.ResultsWe included a total of 84 physicians in the qualitative interrogations and a different group of 42 anesthesiologists in the quantitative part. We identified 11 major topics and 19 associated subtopics. The main topics and the degree of agreement (here as agree or strongly agree) were as follows: "Complexity of the topic" (52.4% agreed to find the topic complex), "Cognitive aids" (92.9% agreed to find them helpful), "Time management" (64.3% agreed to feeling time pressure), "Human factors" (95.2% agreed that human factors are essential), "Resources" (95.2% agreed that resources are essential), "Experience" and "Low frequency of cases" (57.1% agreed to lack practice), "Diagnostic methods" (31.0% agreed that the interpretation of test results is difficult), "Anticoagulation" (85.7% agreed to it being difficult), "Treatment" (81.0% agreed to knowing the first therapeutic steps), and "Nothing".ConclusionsAnesthesiologists in two large tertiary care facilities in different parts of the world found coagulation management, especially in anticoagulated patients, complex. We identified the delayed diagnostic test results and their interpretation as challenges. Resources, treatment protocols and human factors such as team communication were perceived to facilitate management. Future studies should explore the challenges in smaller hospitals and other parts of the world and test new technologies addressing the identified difficulties.

Dataset Information

It's not you, it's the design - common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

Background

Methods

Results

Publications

It's not you, it's the design - common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets