JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

Anesthesia Information Management Systems (AIMS) automatically imports real-time vital signs from physiological monitors to anesthetic records, which replaces part of anesthetists’ traditional manual record keeping. However, only a handful of studies have examined the effect of AIMS on anesthetists’ monitoring performance.

Objective:

To examine the effects of AIMS versus manual record keeping on anesthetists’ monitoring performance using a full-scale high-fidelity simulation

Methods:

This simulation study was a parallel group design randomized controlled trial (RCT) that compared the effect of two record-keeping methods (AIMS versus Manual) on anesthetists’ monitoring performance. Twenty anesthetists at a tertiary hospital in Hong Kong were randomly assigned to either the AIMS or Manual condition, and participated in a 45-minute scenario in a high-fidelity simulation environment. Participants took over a case of general anesthesia for a below-knee amputation surgery and performed record keeping. Three primary outcomes included participants’ (i) vigilance detection accuracy (%), (ii) situation awareness (SA) accuracy (%) and (iii) subjective mental workload (0-100).

Results:

The primary outcomes indicate that there was no significant difference in participants’ vigilance detection accuracy (AIMS = 56.7%, Manual = 56.7%; p = .50) or SA accuracy (AIMS = 86.4%, Manual = 92.1%; p = .14). However, participants who used AIMS reported significantly lower subjective mental workload (AIMS = 34.2 vs. Manual = 46.7; p = .02).

Conclusions:

Our finding is promising for AIMS to become a mainstay of anesthesia record keeping. AIMS is effective in reducing anesthetists’ workload and improving the quality of their anesthetic record keeping, without compromising vigilance or SA.