Cited by 38Human-Automation Interaction and SafetyHealthcare Technology and Patient MonitoringPatient Safety and Medication Errors

Autopilots in the Operating Room: Safe Use of Automated Medical Technology

Ruskin, Keith J., Corvin, Chase, Rice, Stephen C., Winter, Scott R.·2020·Anesthesiology

Abstract

Automated medical technology is becoming an integral part of routine anesthetic practice. Automated technologies can improve patient safety, but may create new workflows with potentially surprising adverse consequences and cognitive errors that must be addressed before these technologies are adopted into clinical practice. Industries such as aviation and nuclear power have developed techniques to mitigate the unintended consequences of automation, including automation bias, skill loss, and system failures. In order to maximize the benefits of automated technology, clinicians should receive training in human–system interaction including topics such as vigilance, management of system failures, and maintaining manual skills. Medical device manufacturers now evaluate usability of equipment using the principles of human performance and should be encouraged to develop comprehensive training materials that describe possible system failures. Additional research in human–system interaction can improve the ways in which automated medical devices communicate with clinicians. These steps will ensure that medical practitioners can effectively use these new devices while being ready to assume manual control when necessary and prepare us for a future that includes automated health care.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/aln.0000000000003385

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Evidence across aviation, nuclear power, and anaesthesiology consistently demonstrates that automation monitoring reduces human vigilance, with novices more susceptible than experts.

    “Evidence across aviation, nuclear power, and anaesthesiology consistently demonstrates that automation monitoring reduces human vigilance, with novices more susceptible than experts 31 .”

    From AI-induced never-skilling in medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

  • In aviation training, pilots must demonstrate manual flight proficiency alongside the use of autopilot systems.

    “An analogy can be drawn with aviation training, where pilots must demonstrate manual flight proficiency alongside the use of autopilot systems 31 .”

    From AI-induced never-skilling in medical education (2026) · cites this paper as [31]

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 102 · Cited by 38

Authors
Ruskin, K. J., Corvin, C., Rice, S. C., & Winter, S. R.
Affiliations
University of Chicago (US)
Venue
Anesthesiology
Published
2020-05-26
Volume
133
Issue
3
Pages
653-665
ISSN
  • 0003-3022 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-1175
OpenAlex
W3031076914
Cited by
38
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Anesthesiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
Keywords
anesthesia, human-system interaction, automation bias, skill loss, sustained attention, system failure, usability, human factors, manual control, patient safety, cognitive errors, medical device training
MeSH terms
Anesthesiology, Automation, Equipment and Supplies, Humans, Medical Records, Operating Rooms, Patient Safety

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review