Maintenance Notice

Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.

Who will be affected?

Accepted for/Published in: JMIR Human Factors

Date Submitted: Nov 4, 2021
Open Peer Review Period: Nov 3, 2021 - Nov 12, 2021
Date Accepted: Feb 3, 2022
Date Submitted to PubMed: Feb 4, 2022
(closed for review but you can still tweet)

The final, peer-reviewed published version of this preprint can be found here:

User Perceptions of Different Vital Signs Monitor Modalities During High-Fidelity Simulation: Semiquantitative Analysis

Akbas S, Said S, Roche TR, Nöthiger CB, Spahn DR, Tscholl DW, Bergauer L

User Perceptions of Different Vital Signs Monitor Modalities During High-Fidelity Simulation: Semiquantitative Analysis

JMIR Hum Factors 2022;9(1):e34677

DOI: 10.2196/34677

PMID: 35119375

PMCID: 8976258

User perceptions of different monitor modalities during high-fidelity simulation: Visual-Patient-avatar, Split Screen and Conventional - a semiquantitative analysis

  • Samira Akbas; 
  • Sadiq Said; 
  • Tadzio Raoul Roche; 
  • Christoph Beat Nöthiger; 
  • Donat Rudolf Spahn; 
  • David Werner Tscholl; 
  • Lisa Bergauer

ABSTRACT

Background:

Patient safety during anaesthesia 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-centred design principles. After a high-fidelity simulation study, we analysed participants' perceptions of three different monitor modalities, including this new technique.

Objective:

After a high-fidelity simulation study, we analysed participants' perceptions of three different monitor modalities, including this new technique.

Methods:

This study was a researcher-initiated, single-centre, qualitative study. We asked 92 care providers right after finishing three simulated emergency scenarios about their positive and negative opinions concerning the different monitor modalities. Following qualitative research methods, we processed the field notes obtained and derived main categories and corresponding subthemes.

Results:

We gained a total of 307 statements. Visual-Patient-avatar was the most occurring term in both positive and negative responses. We identified three main categories and divided them into eleven positive and negative subthemes. In assigning the statements to one of the topics, we achieved substantial inter-rater reliability. Most of the statements concerned the design and usability features of the avatar, respectively, the Split Screen mode.

Conclusions:

This study qualitatively reviewed the clinical applicability of the Visual-Patient-avatar technique in a high-fidelity simulation study and revealed strengths and limitations of the avatar only und Split Screen modality. We received valuable suggestions for improving the design. The requirement of training before clinical implementation was reinforced. The responses regarding the Split Screen suggested that this symbiotic modality generates improved situation awareness combined with numerical data and accurate curves.


 Citation

Please cite as:

Akbas S, Said S, Roche TR, Nöthiger CB, Spahn DR, Tscholl DW, Bergauer L

User Perceptions of Different Vital Signs Monitor Modalities During High-Fidelity Simulation: Semiquantitative Analysis

JMIR Hum Factors 2022;9(1):e34677

DOI: 10.2196/34677

PMID: 35119375

PMCID: 8976258

Download PDF


Request queued. Please wait while the file is being generated. It may take some time.

© The authors. All rights reserved. This is a privileged document currently under peer-review/community review (or an accepted/rejected manuscript). Authors have provided JMIR Publications with an exclusive license to publish this preprint on it's website for review and ahead-of-print citation purposes only. While the final peer-reviewed paper may be licensed under a cc-by license on publication, at this stage authors and publisher expressively prohibit redistribution of this draft paper other than for review purposes.