Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Situation Awareness Assessment to Determine the Usability of a Graphical Anesthesia Display During a Simulated Anesthetic: Study Methods David Lamborn, MSII, Parley Williams, MSII, Noah Syroid, M.S., Dwayne Westenskow, Ph.D. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City Methods and Results (Continued) Introduction Potent intravenous sedatives, analgesics and muscle relaxants are administered by anesthesiologists for induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. Titration of these anesthetic agents is particularly challenging due to the limited amount of available patient information, (e.g., blood pressure, heart rate, respiratory rate, and pO2 levels) available to guide clinicians’ medication and dosing decisions. They have little guidance in terms of visualizing the pharmacology of the agents in real-time. A presentation of drug pharmacology could be used by clinicians to anticipate the changes in drug effect-site concentrations and the corresponding patient responses. A multidisciplinary research team at the University of Utah has developed a real-time graphical display showing model-based predictions of drug pharmacology (i.e. pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and drug-drug synergism) intended for use by anesthesiologists in the operating room. The intent of the graphic display is to assist clinicians when titrating anesthetic agents in the operating room that have differing pharmacologic characteristics and complex interactions (e.g., varying times to reach peak effect, and drug-drug synergism). The foundation of the display is based upon synergistic drug interaction response surfaces (Figure 3), which provide model-based predictions of a typical patient’s level of sedation, analgesia and muscle relaxation. For example, the models are able predict a probability of a typical patient responding to laryngoscopy as a function of the drug concentrations for a sedative (e.g., propofol) and an analgesic (e.g., remifentanil, sufentanil or fentanyl). The primary features of the drug display are illustrated in Figure 1. Use of displays like the one under study may heighten clinical situation awareness, which includes an anesthesiologist’s awareness and understanding of the health, sedation and analgesic status of patient. An anesthesiologist with a high degree of situation awareness is expected to make more effective decisions in complex, dynamic situations1. There are three levels of situation awareness2: Vertical bars represent drugs given by bolus Simulation Colored lines show the effect site concentration of drugs normalized to their ec50’s. All lines White show dose-effect appear lines dashed in the future relationships, including drugdrug synergism Horizontal bars represent drugs given by infusion Gray bands represent probabilities of patient response. The top band in the middle graph represents the 50-95% probability of no response to intubation. The smaller band below it denotes the 50-95% probability of adequate post-op pain management. In the top graph, the band depicts the 50-95% probability of unconsciousness This is the 50% of T1 line, and represents the point where the first twitch in a train of four is expected to lose 50% of its strength. Figure 1: A screenshot from the actual display. The display is broken into 3 graphs: the top graph is the sedation graph, in the middle is the analgesia graph, and at the bottom of the display is the NMB graph. Each gives the clinician pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information about their respective class of drugs. The axes of the graphs are labeled with normalized effect site concentration on the y-axis and time on the x-axis. Note how time is displayed: the break in the middle of the screen represents the present, everything to the left of the break represents the past (extending 30 minutes), and everything to the right of the break represents a model-based prediction of future events (extending 10 minutes). The most salient features of the display are labeled above. Study methods and research tools were developed to train and evaluate anesthesiologists when using a PkPd display during a simulated anesthetic. Figure 2: The patient simulator (METI HPS ver 5.55, Sarasota, FL ) provided a realistic, yet controlled environment for assessing the display’s usability and feasibility. The mannequin was intubated and connected to two infusion pumps, one with propofol the other with remifentanyl. Other monitors, an anesthesia machine and a fully stocked anesthesia cart were used in order to make the simulation lifelike. Figure 3: Response surfaces showing predicted drug effect or normalized probability of patient response to stimuli. The display uses mathematical algorithms with drug doses as inputs to predict effect site concentrations and drug effects. The display takes complicated 3-D pharmacologic modeling and makes it more understandable in an intraoperative setting. Training A training tool, a simulation, and an assessment tool was developed. With extensive training and experience, anesthesiologists have a solid understanding in anesthetic pharmacology. Yet the typical anesthesiologist has had little exposure to PkPd information (such as that on the display in Figure 1) that is presented to them in a real-time clinical situation. Thus, it is necessary to train clinicians prior to their use of the display. A 15 minute scripted PowerPoint presentation was developed to describe the most salient features in the display. Emphasis was placed upon the pharmacologic concepts such as how the display graphically shows the profound synergistic interaction between propofol and an opioid. During the simulation, study participants were encouraged to use the display in order to make decisions regarding their administration of anesthesia to the simulated patient. The simulation was designed to be periodically paused at randomized intervals (standardized across all participants), where investigators probed the participating anesthesiologists’ situation awareness using the SAGAT. 1. Situation Awareness Assessment: 55 questions were designed for investigators to probe participant understanding of the most salient features of the display, in context of a realistic simulation. Of the 55 questions 11, 10, and 34 probed level 1, 2 and 3 situation awareness, respectively. To get a question correct, a participant’s answer would have to agree with predetermined criteria for a correct response. For example, a typical question assessing level 1 situation awareness was “how is a bolus of propofol represented on the display?” If a participant’s response made reference to 1) a vertical yellow bar within 2) the sedation graph, the response was considered correct. Similarly, a typical question probing level 2 situation awareness was “What is the y-axis measuring on the display?” An example of a probe used to assess level 3 situation awareness was “According to what you see on the display, please comment on the patients level of sedation now and where you expect it to be ten minutes into the future.” Similar criteria were drafted for questions assessing both level 2 and 3 situation awareness that had to be fulfilled for any response to be scored as correct. Scripted prompts and answers were drafted to guide participants or train them on any misunderstood components of the display. Correct responses were given a score of 1 point on a scoresheet with no possibility of partial credit. One effective means for evaluating new monitors and visualizations is via assessment of situation awareness obtained by clinicians when using them. The Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT)3 utilizes freezes in a simulated scenario where participants are queried by investigators on their understanding of the clinical situation to ascertain levels of their situation awareness in context of the display. Methods and Results Situation Assessment Tools Three were designed for use during and after the simulated anesthetic: 1. Level 1: The perception of important factors in the environment 2. Level 2: An understanding what those factors mean 3. Level 3: An ability to predict how the system will behave in the future The major aim of the present study is to analyze clinician situation awareness yielded by the SAGAT when using the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PkPd) display, and find “holes” in their understanding that were due to non-intuitive characteristics and features. Identifying areas in the display that are difficult to understand constitutes an important step in increasing the display’s safety and usability in an intraoperative setting. A 45 minute, highly-realistic, scripted simulation of a total intravenous anesthetic was implemented following the presentation. The simulation was designed to have an anesthesiologist take over an anesthetic 10 minutes after induction of anesthesia and placement of an endotracheal tube in the patient. During the simulation, the anesthesiologist had to titrate a sedative (propofol), analgesics (remifentanil and fentanyl), and a muscle relaxant (rocuronium) for a surgical procedure involving a laparoscopic hernia repair that changed to an open hernia repair. The simulated anesthetic and surgery was performed in a realistic mock operating room using a realistic patient simulator (METI HPS ver. 5.55, Sarasota, FL.) as shown in Figure 2. At predetermined points during the simulation, hemodynamic variables (e.g., heart rate and blood pressure) were adjusted according to a relative level of painful stimulus, and the levels of sedation and analgesia titrated by the anesthesiologist. If the display showed over-sedation/analgesia, the simulated patient would become bradycardic and hypotensive; similarly, the patient would become tachycardic and hypertensive if the display showed under-sedation/analgesia. Following the simulation, a NASA Task Load Index (TLX) was administered as well as a short questionnaire to obtain feedback about the simulation and the strengths, weaknesses, and general usability of the display. Responses to the questions posed during and after the simulation were scored and analyzed. 2. NASA-TLX: This standard questionnaire consists of 6 scales of 0-9 (0 being low) and is intended for the participant to self-assess his/her mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, perceived performance, effort and frustration level. The results indicate potential difficulty, challenge, and frustration with regards to the use of the display 3. Post-simulation Questionnaire: This consisted of 4 scales of 0-9, and 3 open ended questions. Scales measured participants’ experience levels with the simulated case, attitudes about the realism of the simulation, and how helpful the display was in managing the case. The questions asked participants to comment on how the display managed the case, as well as on the strengths and weaknesses of the display. Discussion References 1. Endsley MR: Situation awareness global assessment technique (SAGAT): Air to air tactical version user guide. Hawthorne (CA), Northorp Corp., 1990 2. Endsley MR: Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Human Factors 1995; 37: 65-843. 3. Endsley MR: Situation awareness analysis and measurement. Manwah (NJ), Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., Inc., 2000 Training, simulation and research tools have been designed and developed for evaluating anesthesiologists’ situation awareness. After training and evaluating anesthesiologists, the results from the SAGAT questions, the NASA-TLX, and the Post-simulation Questionnaire were compiled and analyzed to identify: 1) the adequacy of the training for the PkPd Display, and 2) the inherent strengths and weaknesses of the PkPd display when used during a realistic simulation of a general totalintravenous anesthetic. The results of the study will drive changes in the design of the PkPd Display prior to its implementation into clinical practice.