Cited by 50Patient Safety and Medication ErrorsHuman-Automation Interaction and SafetyHealthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring

Laptops and smartphones in the operating theatre–how does our knowledge of vigilance, multi-tasking and anaesthetist performance help us in our approach to this new distraction?

Open access
Jorm, C. M., O'Sullivan, G.·2012·Anaesthesia and Intensive Care

Abstract

There has been no research performed concerning the effects of the use of laptops and smartphones in the operating theatre on anaesthetist performance, yet these devices are now in frequent use. This article explores the implications of this phenomenon. The cognitive and environmental factors that support or detract from vigilance and multi-tasking are explored and core anaesthetic literature on the nature of anaesthetic work and operating theatre distractions is reviewed. Experienced anaesthetists are skilled at multi-tasking while maintaining situational awareness, but there are limits. Noise, interruptions and emotional arousal are detrimental to the cognitive performance of anaesthetists. While limited reading during periods of low task load may not reduce vigilance, computer use introduces text-based activities that are more interactive and potentially more distracting. All anaesthetists need to be mindful of the limits to the human attention span which requires observation and limiting distractions. Trainees have less experience and less ‘attentional’ safety margin, so should avoid adding additional distractions such as discretionary use of laptops or smartphones to their operating theatre work. We provide recommendations for future research on the specific advantages and disadvantages of pervasive computing in the operative theatre.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0310057x1204000101

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Dual-task conditions decrease performance in both laboratory and medical settings.

    “Dual-task conditions are known to decrease perfor-mance in both laboratory settings [31] and medical settings [32][33][34][35] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [33]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 52

  1. Turkle S. A1ways-OnJAlways-On-You: The Tethered Self. In: Katz J, ed. Handbook of Mobile Communication Studies. Massachusetts: MIT Press 2ooS. p. 121-13S.
  2. Coyne R. The Tuning of Place: Sociable Spaces and Pervasive Digital Media. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press 2010. p. 77-7S, xix,204-209, 147, 10-12.
  3. Gibbs N, Borton C. Safety of Anaesthesia in Australia. A Review of Anaesthesia Related Mortality 2000-2002. Melbourne: ANZCA 2006.
  4. Weinger MB. Vigilance, boredom, and sleepiness. J Clin Monit Comput 1999; 15:549-552.
  5. Grier RA, Warm JS, Dember WN, Matthews G, Galinsky TL, Parasuraman R. The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness. Hum Factors 2003; 45:349-359.
  6. Warm JS, Parasuraman R, Matthews G. Vigilance requires hard mental work and is stressful. Hum Factors 200S; 50:433-441.
  7. Phillips R, Madhavan P. The effect of distractor modality and processing code on human-automation interaction. Cogn Tech Work 2011; 13:233-244.
  8. Finomore V, Matthews G, Shaw T, Warm J. Predicting vigi- lance: a fresh look at an old problem. Ergonomics 2009; 52:791- SOS.
  9. Slagle JM, Weinger MB. Effects of intraoperative read- ing on vigilance and workload during anesthesia care in an academic medical center. Anesthesiology 2009; 110:275- 283.
  10. SI. John M, Riser M. Closed-loop attention management: using augmented cognition to sustain vigilance. 26th Army Science Conference. Orlando, Florida, 200S.
  11. Teigen K. Yerkes-Dodson: a law for all seasons. Theory Psychology 1994; 4:525-547.
  12. Dekker S, Hollnagel E. Human factors and folk models. Cogn Tech Work 2004; 6:79-S6.
  13. Poldrack RA, Foerde K. Category learning and the memory systems debate. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2OOS; 32:197-205.
  14. Levine LE, Waite BM, Bowman LL. Electronic media use, read- ing, and academic distractibility in college youth. Cyberpsychol Behav 2007; 10:560-566.
  15. Lin L. Breadth-biased versus focused cognitive control in media multitasking behaviors. Proc Nat! Acad Sci USA 2009; 106:15521-15522.
  16. IS. Wickens CD. Situation awareness: review of Mica Endsley's 1995 articles on situation awareness theory and measurement. Hum Factors 2OOS; 50:397-403.
  17. Ophir E, Nass C, Wagner AD. Cognitive control in media mul- titaskers. Proc Nat! Acad Sci USA 2009; 106:155S3-155S7.
  18. Cummings ML. The need for command and control instant message adaptive interfaces: lessons learned from Tactical Tomahawk human-in-the-loop simulations. Cyberpsychol Behav 2004; 7:653-661.
  19. Charlton SG. Driving while conversing: cell phones that dis- tract and passengers who react. Accid Anal Prev 2009; 41:160- 173.
  20. Dula CS, Martin BA, Fox RT, Leonard RL. Differing types of cellular phone conversations and dangerous driving. Accid Anal Prev 2011; 43:1S7-193.
  21. F1inR. Rudeness at work. BMJ 2010; 340:c24S0.
  22. Leedal JM, Smith AF. Methodological approaches to anaes- thetists' workload in the operating theatre. Br J Anaesth 2005; 94:702-709.
  23. Sanderson P,Crawford J, Savill A, Watson M, Russell W.Visual and auditory attention in patient monitoring: a formative analy- sis. Cogn Tech Work 2004; 6:172-185.
  24. Fioratou E, F1in R, Glavin R, Patey R. Beyond monitoring: dis- tributed situation awareness in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth 2010; 105:83-90.
  25. 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; 111:653-658.
  26. Donald FM. The classification of vigilance tasks in the real world. Ergonomics 2008; 51:1643-1655.
  27. Klein G. Sources of Power: how people make decisions. Cambridge and London: The MIT Press 1998.
  28. Weinger MB, Reddy SB, Slagle JM. Multiple measures of anes- thesia workload during teaching and nonteaching cases. Anesth Analg 2004; 98:1419-1425.
  29. Gaba OM, Howard SK. Patient safety: fatigue among clinicians and the safety of patients. N Engl J Med 2002; 347:1249-1255.
  30. Broom MA, Capek AL, Carachi P, Akeroyd MA, Hilditch G. Critical phase distractions in anaesthesia and the sterile cockpit concept. Anaesthesia 2011; 66:175-179.
  31. Healey AN, Primus CPo Koutantji M. Quantifying distraction and interruption in urological surgery. Qual Saf Health Care 2007; 16:135-139.
  32. Murthy VS, Malhotra SI<, Bala I, Raghunathan M. Detrimental effects of noise on anaesthetists. Can J Anaesth 1995; 42:608-611.
  33. Drews FA, Westenskow DR. The right picture is worth a thou- sand numbers: data displays in anesthesia. Hum Factors 2006; 48:59-71.
  34. Watson M, Sanderson P, Russell W. Tailoring reveals informa- tion requirements: the case of anaesthesia alarms. Interacting with Computers 2004; 16:271-293.
  35. Grundgeiger T, Sanderson P. Interruptions in healthcare: theo- retical views. Int J Med Inform 2009; 78:293-307.
  36. Rivera-Rodriguez AJ, Karsh B-T. Interruptions and distractions in healthcare: review and reappraisal. Qual Saf Health Care 2010; 19:304-312.
  37. Weigl M, Muller A, Zupanc A, Glaser J, Angerer P. Hospital doctors' workflow interruptions and activities: an observation study. BMJ Qual Saf201l; 20:491-497.
  38. Dieckmann P, Reddersen S, Wehner T, RaIl M. Prospective memory failures as an unexplored threat to patient safety: results from a pilot study using patient simulators to investigate the missed execution of intentions. Ergonomics 2006; 49:526-543.
  39. Merry AF, Weller JM, Robinson BJ, Warman GR, Davies E, Shaw J et aI. A simulation design for research evaluating safety innovations in anaesthesia. Anaesthesia 2008; 63:1349-1357.
  40. Sevdalis N, Forrest D, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent C. Annoyances, disruptions, and interruptions in surgery: the Disruptions in Surgery Index (DiSI). World J Surg 2008; 32:1643-1650.
  41. F1in R, Fletcher G, McGeorge P, Sutherland A, Patey R. Anaesthetists' attitudes to teamwork and safety. Anaesthesia 2003; 58:233-242.
  42. Phipps DL, Parker D, Pals EJM, Meakin GH, Nsoedo C, Beatty PCw. Identifying violation-provoking conditions in a healthcare setting. Ergonomics 2008; 51:1625-1642.
  43. Vincent C. Bold Aims Bold Outcomes -6th Australasian Conference on Safety and Quality in Healthcare; 1-3 September 2008; Christchurch, New Zealand.
  44. van Beuzekom M, Boer F, Akerboom S, Hudson P. Patient safety: latent risk factors. Br J Anaesth 2010; 105:52-59.
  45. Bardram J, Hansen T. Context-based workplace awareness - concepts and technologies for supporting distributed awareness in a hospital environment. Computer Supported Cooperative Work 2010; 19:105-138.
  46. van Mook WNKA, Gorter SL, de Grave WS, van Luijk SJ, O'Sullivan H, Wass V et aI. Professionalism beyond medical school: an educational continuum? Eur J Intern Med 2009; 20:e148-152.
  47. Harrison TI<, Manser T, Howard SK, Gaba DM. Use of cogni- tive aids in a simulated anesthetic crisis. Anesth Analg 2006; 103:551-556.
  48. O'Leary KJ, Williams MY. The evolution and future of hospital medicine. Mt Sinai J Med 2008; 75:418-423.
  49. Fletcher G, F1in R, McGeorge P, Glavin R, Maran N, Patey R. Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anaesth 2003; 90:580-588.
  50. Sexton JB, Thomas EJ, Helmreich RL Error, stress, and team- work in medicine and aviation: cross sectional surveys. BMJ 2000; 320:745-749.
  51. Edmondson AC. Speaking up in the operating room: how team leaders promote learning in interdisciplinary action teams. Journal of Management Studies 2003; 40:1419-1452.
  52. Lingard L, Espin S, Whyte S, Regehr G, Baker GR, Reznick R et aI. Communication failures in the operating room: an obser- vational classification of recurrent types and effects. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13:330-334.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jorm, C. M., & O'Sullivan, G.
Affiliations
  • Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
  • St Vincent's Hospital Sydney (AU)
Venue
Anaesthesia and Intensive Care
Published
2012-01
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
71-78
ISSN
  • 0310-057X (ISSN-L)
  • 1448-0271
OpenAlex
W2415492483
Cited by
50
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 5
FWCI
9.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Anaesthesia and Intensive Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Emergency Medical Services › Patient Safety and Medication Errors
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Human-Automation Interaction and Safety
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Healthcare Technology and Patient Monitoring
Keywords
notebooks, smartphones, operating room, distraction, sustained attention, multitasking, situational awareness, attention span, noise, interruptions, emotional arousal, anaesthesia trainees, ubiquitous computing, cognitive performance
MeSH terms
Animals, Equipment Design, Humans, Respiration, Artificial, Ventilators, Mechanical, History, 19th Century

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