Advertisement

The Ten Characteristics of the Critical Task

Ergonomic Analysis of Vitality Requirements in Aortic Valve Surgery
  • René Patesson
  • Eric BrangierEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9745)

Abstract

This research forms a part of the design of a system for the resection and implantation of an aortic valve. Four transapical endovalve implantations are analyzed with a view to characterizing the exceptional criticality of this surgical procedure. We demonstrate that the surgeon’s activity is largely cognitive, operational and social and requires mastery of a critical task, i.e. the performance and supervision of a risky, deliberately initiated procedure with an uncertain outcome. The concept of “critical task” is used to describe tasks combining potentially extreme seriousness and potential success, risk-taking with cure. The task is critical as its criticality is intentionally generated by the surgical team. In short, this paper defines the concept of critical task according to ten characteristics: Deliberate, Uniqueness, Learning restriction, Planning, Expertise, Preparation, Collective, Hazardous, Rigidity and Uncertain outcome; and supplies a number of ergonomic recommendations with a view to improvement.

Keywords

Critical task Surgery Design ergonomics Medical device Usability 

References

  1. 1.
    Albayrak, A., Snijders, C.J.: Basics of Surgery: Tools, Techniques, Attitude and Expertise, pp. 151–169. Maarssen, Elsevier, Gezondheidszorg (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amalberti, R.: La conduite de systèmes à risques, 2nd edn. PUF, Paris (2001)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Astarci, P., Glineur, D., Elkhoury, G., Raucent, B.: A novel device for endovascular native aortic valve resection for transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Interact. CardioVasc. Thorac. Surg. 14, 378–380 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Baron, M., Lucquiaud, V., Autard, D., Scapin, D.L.: K-MADe: un environnement pour le noyau du modèle de description de l’activité. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference of the Association Francophone d’Interaction Homme-Machine 2006, pp. 287–288 (2006). http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1132736.1132786
  5. 5.
    Carayon, P.: Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics in Health Care and Patient Safety, 2nd edn, p. 876p. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carayon, P., Schoofs Hundt, A., Karsh, B.-T., Gurses, A.P., Alvarado, C.J., Smith, M., Flatley Brennan, P.: Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Q. Saf. Health Care 15(Suppl 1), 50–58 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    De Keyser, V., Nyssen, A.S.: Les erreurs humaines en anesthésie. Le travail humain 56(2–3), 233–241 (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Donabedian, A.: The quality of care. JAMA 260(12), 17–43 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Flanagan, J.: The critical incident. Psychol. Bull. 51, 327–358 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hanna, G.B., Cuschieri, A.: Image display technology and image processing. World J. Surg. 25, 1419–1427 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kerguelen, A.: «Actogram Kronos»: Un outil d’aide à l’analyse de l’activité. In: Norimatsu, H., Pigem, N. Les techniques d’observation en sciences humaines, pp. 142–158. Armand Colin (2008)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Liang, B., Qi, L., Yang, J., Cao, Z., Zu, X., Liu, L., Wang, L.: Ergonomic status of laparoscopic urologic surgery: survey results from 241 urologic surgeons in China. PLoS ONE 8(7), e70423 (2013). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0070423 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leplat, J.: De l’étude de cas à l’analyse de l’activité. Pistes 4(2) (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mitchell, L., Flin, R.: Non-technical skills of the operating theatre nurse: literature review. J. Adv. Nurs. 63, 15–24 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van Det, M.J., Meijerink, W.J.H.J., Hoff, C., Totte, E.R., Pierie, J.P.E.N.: Optimal ergonomics for laparoscopic surgery in minimally invasive surgery suites: a review and guidelines. Surg. Endosc. 23, 1279–1285 (2009). 10.1007/s00464-008-0148-xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Weinger, B.W., Wiklund, M.E., Gardner-Bonnerau, D.J.: Handbook of Human Factors in Medical Device Design, p. 844. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2011)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wauben, L.S.G.L., van Veelen, M.A., Gossot, D., Goossens, R.H.M.: Application of ergonomic guidelines during minimally invasive surgery: a questionnaire survey of 284 surgeons. Surg. Endosc. 20(8), 1268–1274 (2006). doi: 10.1007/s00464-005-0647-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wiklund, M.E., Wilcox, J.: Designing Usability into Medical Device, p. 339. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Yule, S., Flin, R., Paterson-Brown, S., Maran, N.: Non-technical skills for surgeons in the operating room: a review of the literature. Surgery 139(2), 140–149 (2006). doi: 10.1016/j.surg.2005.06.017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Université Libre de Bruxelles – CREATICBrusselsBelgium
  2. 2.Université de Lorraine - PErSEUsMetz cedex 01France

Personalised recommendations