JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS
AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
A&A International Anesthesia Research Society
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Anesth Analg 2009; 109:1135-1146
© 2009 International Anesthesia Research Society
doi: 10.1213/ANE.0b013e3181b5a200
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a colleague
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Liu, D.
Right arrow Articles by Russell, W. J.
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Liu, D.
Right arrow Articles by Russell, W. J.
Related Collections
Right arrow Education
Right arrow Technology


TECHNOLOGY, COMPUTING, AND SIMULATION

Monitoring with Head-Mounted Displays: Performance and Safety in a Full-Scale Simulator and Part-Task Trainer

David Liu, BE (Hons)*, Simon A. Jenkins, BMBS, FANZCA{dagger}{ddagger}, Penelope M. Sanderson, PhD, FASSA*§||, Marcus O. Watson, PhD||, Terrence Leane, RN, GDPH, GDNursSci, Amanda Kruys, MBBS{dagger}, and W. John Russell, MBBS, DPhil, DIC, FANZCA, FRCA{dagger}

From the *School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering, The University of Queensland, Brisbane; {dagger}Department of Anaesthesia, Pain Medicine and Hyperbaric Medicine, Royal Adelaide Hospital; {ddagger}Centre for Sleep Research, University of South Australia, Adelaide; §School of Psychology, The University of Queensland; ||School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane; and ¶Nursing and Patient Care Services, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, Australia.

Address correspondence to David Liu, BE (Hons), Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, 3C444 SOM, 30 North 1900 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84132-2304. Address e-mail to naskies{at}acm.org.

BACKGROUND: Head-mounted displays (HMDs) can help anesthesiologists with intraoperative monitoring by keeping patients’ vital signs within view at all times, even while the anesthesiologist is busy performing procedures or unable to see the monitor. The anesthesia literature suggests that there are advantages of HMD use, but research into head-up displays in the cockpit suggests that HMDs may exacerbate inattentional blindness (a tendency for users to miss unexpected but salient events in the field of view) and may introduce perceptual issues relating to focal depth. We investigated these issues in two simulator-based experiments.

METHODS: Experiment 1 investigated whether wearing a HMD would affect how quickly anesthesiologists detect events, and whether the focus setting of the HMD (near or far) makes any difference. Twelve anesthesiologists provided anesthesia in three naturalistic scenarios within a simulated operating theater environment. There were 24 different events that occurred either on the patient monitor or in the operating room. Experiment 2 investigated whether anesthesiologists physically constrained by performing a procedure would detect patient-related events faster with a HMD than without. Twelve anesthesiologists performed a complex simulated clinical task on a part-task endoscopic dexterity trainer while monitoring the simulated patient’s vital signs. All participants experienced four different events within each of two scenarios.

RESULTS: Experiment 1 showed that neither wearing the HMD nor adjusting the focus setting reduced participants’ ability to detect events (the number of events detected and time to detect events). In general, participants spent more time looking toward the patient and less time toward the anesthesia machine when they wore the HMD than when they used standard monitoring alone. Participants reported that they preferred the near focus setting. Experiment 2 showed that participants detected two of four events faster with the HMD, but one event more slowly with the HMD. Participants turned to look toward the anesthesia machine significantly less often when using the HMD. When using the HMD, participants reported that they were less busy, monitoring was easier, and they believed they were faster at detecting abnormal changes.

CONCLUSIONS: The HMD helped anesthesiologists detect events when physically constrained, but not when physically unconstrained. Although there was no conclusive evidence of worsened inattentional blindness, found in aviation, the perceptual properties of the HMD display appear to influence whether events are detected. Anesthesiologists wearing HMDs should self-adjust the focus to minimize eyestrain and should be aware that some changes may not attract their attention. Future areas of research include developing principles for the design of HMDs, evaluating other types of HMDs, and evaluating the HMD in clinical contexts.







Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins and Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999 HighWire Press
Copyright © 2009 by the International Anesthesia Research Society.