The Co-design Process of a Decision Support Tool for Airway Management

  • Raphaela SchnittkerEmail author
  • Stuart Marshall
  • Tim Horberry
  • Kristie L. Young
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 818)


The aim of this study is to design a decision support tool for challenging airway management events in anaesthesia. Major complications in airway management occur infrequently, but have a high risk of causing patient harm. Airway management takes place in complex sociotechnical environments that require anaesthesia teams to make decisions ‘on the fly’, often under time pressure and uncertainty. Contemporary decision support tools for airway management are too complex and do not involve anaesthesia team members in the design process. This study reports a co-design process to design an airway equipment trolley in conjunction with anaesthetists and anaesthetic nurses. It is part of a decision-centred design research program and is based on previously performed cognitive task analysis methods such as observations, Critical Decision Method interviews and focus groups. The present paper will discuss the co-design process including the elicitation of design requirements, the prototype development and the evaluation using case scenarios.


Human factors Decision making Airway management 


  1. Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. (2012) ANZCA Handbook for Training and Accreditation. Melbourne, Australia.
  2. Berkow LC (2004) Strategies for airway management. Best Practice Res Clin Anaesthesiol 18(4):531–548. Scholar
  3. Bromiley M (2009) Would you speak up if the consultant got it wrong?…and would you listen if someone said you’d got it wrong? J Perioperative Pract 19(10):326–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chrimes N (2016) The vortex: a universal “high-acuity implementation tool” for emergency airway management. Br J Anaesth, aew175.
  5. Cook TM, Macdougall-Davis SR (2012) Complications and failure of airway management. Br J Anaesth 109(SUPPL1):i68–i85. Scholar
  6. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C (2011) Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society. Part 1: anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 106(5):617–631. Scholar
  7. Flin R, Fioratou E, Frerk C, Trotter C, Cook TM (2013) Human factors in the development of complications of airway management: preliminary evaluation of an interview tool. Anaesthesia 68:817–825CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Heard AMB, Green RJ, Eakins P (2009) The formulation and introduction of a “can”t intubate, can’t ventilate’ algorithm into clinical practice. Anaesthesia 64(6):601–608. Scholar
  9. Heidegger T, Gerig HJ, Henderson JJ (2005) Strategies and algorithms for management of the difficult airway. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol 19(4):661–674. Scholar
  10. Klein G, Calderwood R, Macgregor D (1989) Critical decision method for eliciting knowledge. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 19(3):462–472CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Klein G, Kaempf GL, Wolf S, Thorsden M, Miller T (1997) Applying decision requirements to user-centered design. Int J Hum Comput Stud 46(1):1–15. Scholar
  12. Larsson J, Holmström IK (2013) How excellent anaesthetists perform in the operating theatre: a qualitative study on non-technical skills. Br J Anaesth 110(1):115–121. Scholar
  13. Lintern G, Motavalli A (2018) Healthcare information systems: the cognitive challenge. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 18(1):1–10. Scholar
  14. Marshall S (2013) The use of cognitive aids during emergencies in anesthesia: A review of the literature. Anesth Analg 117(5):1162–1171. Scholar
  15. Marshall SD, Mehra R (2014) The effects of a displayed cognitive aid on non-technical skills in a simulated “can”t intubate, can’t oxygenate’ crisis. Anaesthesia 69(7):669–677. Scholar
  16. Schmettow M, Vos W, Schraagen JM (2013) With how many users should you test a medical infusion pump? Sampling strategies for usability tests on high-risk systems. J Biomed Inform 46(4):626–641. Scholar
  17. Schnittker R, Marshall S, Horberry T, Young K (2018) Human factors enablers and barriers for successful airway management – an in-depth interview study. Anaesthesia, 1–10.
  18. Schnittker R, Marshall S, Horberry T, Young K, Lintern G (2017) Exploring decision pathways in challenging airway management episodes. J Cogn Eng Decis Making 11(4):353–370. Scholar
  19. Schnittker R, Marshall S, Horberry T, Young K, Lintern G (2016) Examination of anesthetic practitioners’ decisions for the design of a cognitive tool for airway management. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 60th Annual Meeting, Washington D.C., pp 1763–1767Google Scholar
  20. Shapell S, Wiegmann DA (2010) Integrating human factors into system safety. In: O’Connor JV, Cohn PE (ed) Human performance enhancement in high risk environments: insights, developments and future directions in military research. Praeger Security International, Santa Barbara, pp 189–209.
  21. The Royal College of Anaesthetists and The Difficult Airway Society (2011) Major complications of airway management in the United Kingdom.
  22. Watterson L, Rehak A, Heard A, Marshall S (2014) Transition from supraglottic to infraglottic rescue in the ‘can’t intubate can’t oxygenate’ (CICO) scenario.
  23. Wharton C, Rieman J, Lewis C, Polson P (1994) The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner’s guide. Usability Inspection. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raphaela Schnittker
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Stuart Marshall
    • 2
  • Tim Horberry
    • 1
  • Kristie L. Young
    • 1
  1. 1.Monash University Accident Research CentreMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Central Clinical SchoolMonash UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations