Dataset Information

Inattentional blindness in anesthesiology: A gorilla is worth one thousand words.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

People are not able to anticipate unexpected events. Inattentional blindness is demonstrated to happen not only in naïve observers engaged in an unfamiliar task but also in field experts with years of training. Anaesthesia is the perfect example of a discipline which requires a high level of attention and our aim was to evaluate if inattentional blindness can affect anesthesiologists during their daily activities.

Materials and methods

An online survey was distributed on Facebook between May 1, 2021 and May 31, 2021. The survey consisted of five simulated cases with questions investigating the anesthetic management of day-case surgeries. Each case had an introduction, a chest radiography, an electrocardiogram, preoperative blood testing and the last case had a gorilla embedded in the chest radiography.

Results

In total 699 respondents from 17 different countries were finally included in the analysis. The main outcome was to assess the incidence of inattentional blindness. Only 34 (4.9%) respondents were able to spot the gorilla. No differences were found between anesthesiologists or residents, private or public hospitals, or between medical doctors with different experience.

Discussion

Our findings assess that inattentional blindness is common in anesthesia, and ever-growing attention is deemed necessary to improve patient safety; to achieve this objective several strategies should be adopted such as an increased use of standardized protocols, promoting automation based strategies to reduce human error when performing repetitive tasks and discouraging evaluation of multiple consecutive patients in the same work shifts independently of the associated complexity.

SUBMITTER: De Cassai A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8459955 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOnline survey-based methods are increasingly used to elicit preferences for healthcare. This digitization creates an opportunity for interactive survey elements, potentially improving respondents' understanding and/or engagement.ObjectiveOur objective was to understand whether, and how, training materials in a survey influenced stated preferences.MethodsAn online discrete-choice experiment (DCE) was designed to elicit public preferences for a new targeted approach to prescribing biologics ("biologic calculator") for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) compared with conventional prescribing. The DCE presented three alternatives, two biologic calculators and a conventional approach (opt out), described by five attributes: delay to treatment, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, infection risk, and cost saving to the national health service. Respondents were randomized to receive training materials as plain text or an animated storyline. Training materials contained information about RA and approaches to treatment and described the biologic calculator. Background questions included sociodemographics and self-reported measures of task difficulty and attribute non-attendance. DCE data were analyzed using conditional and heteroskedastic conditional logit (HCL) models.ResultsIn total, 300 respondents completed the DCE, receiving either plain text (n = 158) or the animated storyline (n = 142). The HCL showed the estimated coefficients for all attributes aligned with a priori expectations and were statistically significant. The scale term was statistically significant, indicating that respondents who received plain-text materials had more random choices. Further tests suggested preference homogeneity after accounting for differences in scale.ConclusionsUsing animated training materials did not change the preferences of respondents, but they appeared to improve choice consistency, potentially allowing researchers to include more complex designs with increased numbers of attributes, levels, alternatives or choice sets.