Patient monitoring requires constant attention and may be particularly vulnerable to distractions, which frequently occur during perioperative work. In this study, we compared anesthesia providers’ perceptive performance and perceived workload under distraction for conventional and avatar-based monitoring, a situation awareness-based technology that displays patient status as an animated patient model. In this prospective, multicenter study with a within-subject design, 38 participants evaluated scenarios of 3- and 10-s durations using conventional and avatar-based monitoring, under standardized distraction in the form of a simple calculation task. We quantified perceptual performance as the number of vital signs correctly remembered out of the total of 11 vital signs shown. We quantified perceived workload using the National Aeronautics and Space Administration Task Load Index score. Anesthesia providers remembered more vital signs under distraction using the avatar monitoring technology in the 3-s scenario: 6 (interquartile range [IQR] 5–7) vs. 3 (IQR 2–4), p < 0.001, mean of differences (MoD): 3 (95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1 to 4), and in the 10-s monitoring task: 6 (IQR 5–8) vs. 4 (IQR 2–7), p = 0.028, MoD: 1 (95% CI 0.2 to 3). Participants rated perceived workload lower under distraction with the avatar in the 3-s scenario: 65 (IQR 40–79) vs. 75 (IQR 51–88), p = 0.007, MoD: 9 (95% CI 3 to 15), and in the 10-s scenario: 68 (IQR 50–80) vs. 75 (IQR 65–86), p = 0.019, MoD: 10 (95% CI 2 to 18). Avatar-based monitoring improved anesthesia providers’ perceptive performance under distraction and reduced perceived workload. This technology could help to improve caregivers’ situation awareness, especially in high-workload situations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
- CO2 :
Paced auditory serial additions test
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Task Load Index
Mean of differences
- 95% CI:
95% Confidence interval
Campbell G, Arfanis K, Smith AF. Distraction and interruption in anaesthetic practice. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:707–15.
van Pelt M, Weinger MB. Distractions in the anesthesia work environment: impact on patient safety? Report of a meeting sponsored by the anesthesia patient safety foundation. Anesth Analg. 2017;125:347–50.
Slagle JM, Porterfield ES, Lorinc AN, Afshartous D, Shotwell MS, Weinger MB. Prevalence of potentially distracting noncare activities and their effects on vigilance, workload, and nonroutine events during anesthesia care. Anesthesiology. 2018;128:44–54.
Wheelock A, Suliman A, Wharton R, et al. The impact of operating room distractions on stress, workload, and teamwork. Ann Surg. 2015;261:1079–84.
Broom MA, Capek AL, Carachi P, Akeroyd MA, Hilditch G. Critical phase distractions in anaesthesia and the sterile cockpit concept. Anaesthesia. 2011;66:175–9.
Schulz CM, Endsley MR, Kochs EF, Gelb AW, Wagner KJ. Situation awareness in anesthesia: concept and research. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:729–42.
Endsley M, Jones D. Designing for situation awareness: an approach to user-centered design. Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc.; 2011.
Fioratou E, Flin R, Glavin R, Patey R. Beyond monitoring: distributed situation awareness in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:83–90.
Craik FI. Effects of distraction on memory and cognition: a commentary. Front Psychol. 2014;5:841.
McKinley J, Dempster M, Gormley GJ. ‘Sorry, I meant the patient’s left side’: impact of distraction on left-right discrimination. Med Educ. 2015;49:427–35.
Lee K, Kim MJ, Park J, et al. The effect of distraction by dual work on a CPR practitioner’s efficiency in chest compression: a randomized controlled simulation study. Medicine (Baltimore). 2017;96:e8268.
McGowan G, Jawaheer L, Young D, Yorston D. QUIET PLEASE! Effect of distraction on simulated posterior segment surgical performance. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2018;256:519–23.
Yang C, Heinze J, Helmert J, Weitz J, Reissfelder C, Mees ST. Impaired laparoscopic performance of novice surgeons due to phone call distraction: a single-centre, prospective study. Surg Endosc. 2017;31:5312–7.
Sanderson PM, Watson MO, Russell WJ. Advanced patient monitoring displays: tools for continuous informing. Anesth Analg. 2005;101:161–8.
Drews FA, Westenskow DR. The right picture is worth a thousand numbers: data displays in anesthesia. Hum Factors. 2006;48:59–71.
Rayner K. Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. Psychol Bull. 1998;124:372–422.
Tscholl DW, Handschin L, Neubauer P, et al. Using an animated patient avatar to improve perception of vital sign information by anaesthesia professionals. Br J Anaesth. 2018;121:662–71.
Tscholl DW, Weiss M, Handschin L, Spahn DR, Noethiger CB. User perceptions of avatar-based patient monitoring: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2018;18:188.
Loeb RG. Monitor surveillance and vigilance of anesthesia residents. Anesthesiology. 1994;80:527–33.
Ford S, Birmingham E, King A, Lim J, Ansermino JM. At-a-glance monitoring: covert observations of anesthesiologists in the operating room. Anesth Analg. 2010;111:653–8.
Degani A, Jorgensen CC, Shafto M, Olson L. On organization of information: approach and early work. Cambridge: MIT Press; 2009.
Wittgenstein L. Tractatus logico-philosophicus. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul; 1922.
Tombaugh TN. A comprehensive review of the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT). Arch Clin Neuropsychol. 2006;21:53–76.
Hart SG, Stavenland LE. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock PA, Meshkati N, editors. Human mental workload. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1988. p. 139–83.
Hart S. Nasa-task load index (Nasa-TLX); 20 years later human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, 2006.
Endsley M, Garland D. Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Boca Raton: CRC Press Inc; 2000.
Tscholl DW, Weiss M, Spahn DR, Noethiger CB. How to conduct multimethod field studies in the operating room: the iPad combined with a survey app as a valid and reliable data collection tool. JMIR Res Protoc. 2016;5:e4.
Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320:768–70.
Tscholl DW, Handschin L, Roessler J, Weiss M, Spahn DR, Noethiger CB. It’s not you, it’s the design—common problems with patient monitoring reported by anesthesiologists: a mixed qualitative and quantitative study. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019;19:87.
Gaba DM, Howard SK, Small SD. Situation awareness in anesthesiology. Hum Factors. 1995;37:20–31.
Schulz CM, Krautheim V, Hackemann A, Kreuzer M, Kochs EF, Wagner KJ. Situation awareness errors in anesthesia and critical care in 200 cases of a critical incident reporting system. BMC Anesthesiol. 2016;16:4.
Schulz CM, Burden A, Posner KL, et al. Frequency and type of situational awareness errors contributing to death and brain damage: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 2017;127:326–37.
United States Federal Aviation Regulation 121.542/135.100, “Flight crewmember duties.” Federal Aviation Administration. 1981.
European Union Commission Regulation (EU) No 965/2012 on air operations. European Aviation Safety Agency. 2012.
Gurushanthaiah K, Weinger M, Englund C. Visual display format affects the ability of anesthesiologists to detect acute physiologic changes: a laboratory study employing a clinical display simulator. Anesthesiology. 1995;83(6):1184–93.
Blike GT, Surgenor SD, Whalen K. A graphical object display improves anesthesiologists’ performance on a simulated diagnostic task. J Clin Monit Comput. 1999;15(1):37–44.
Agutter J, Drews F, Syroid N, Westneskow D, Albert R, Strayer D, Bermudez J, Weinger MB. Evaluation of graphic cardiovascular display in a high-fidelity simulator. Anesth Analg. 2003;97(5):1403–13 PubMed PMID: 14570658.
Wachter SB, Johnson K, Albert R, Syroid N, Drews F, Westenskow D. The evaluation of a pulmonary display to detect adverse respiratory events using high resolution human simulator. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):635–42.
Görges M, Staggers N. Evaluations of physiological monitoring displays: a systematic review. J Clin Monit Comput. 2008;22(1):45–66.
Kamaleswaran R, McGregor C. A review of visual representations of physiologic data. JMIR Med Inform. 2016;4(4):e31.
Wachter SB, Agutter J, Syroid N, Drews F, Weinger MB, Westenskow D. The employment of an iterative design process to develop a pulmonary graphical display. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10(4):363–72.
Pfarr J, Ganter MT, Spahn DR, Noethiger CB, Tscholl DW. Avatar-based patient monitoring with peripheral vision: a multicenter comparative eye-tracking study. J Med Internet Res. 2019;21(7):e13041.
Institute of Anesthesiology, University, and University Hospital Zurich: institutional funding. Institute of Anesthesiology and Pain Therapy, Cantonal Hospital Winterthur: institutional funding. University of Zurich: Proof of concept funding (UZ16/288POC). University of Zurich: DWT career development grant.
Conflict of interest
The University of Zurich and Koninklijke Philips N.V., Amsterdam entered a joint development and licensing agreement to develop an avatar-based product. As part of this agreement, the authors DWT and CBN may receive royalties.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Pfarr, J., Ganter, M.T., Spahn, D.R. et al. Effects of a standardized distraction on caregivers’ perceptive performance with avatar-based and conventional patient monitoring: a multicenter comparative study. J Clin Monit Comput 34, 1369–1378 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10877-019-00429-2
- Situation awareness
- Patient monitoring
- Computer-assisted diagnosis
- Visual patient