Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (5)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nazir, T.
Right arrow Articles by Beatty, P. C. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nazir, T.
Right arrow Articles by Beatty, P. C. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2000, Vol. 85, No. 5 781-784
© 2000 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia

Brief Communication

Anaesthetists' attitudes to monitoring instrument design options

T. Nazir1 and P. C. W. Beatty2,*

1Department of Anaesthesia, South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust, Withington Hospital, Nell Lane, Manchester M20 8LR, UK. 2Division of Imaging Science and Biomedical Engineering, The Stopford Building, The University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M12 9PT, UK

Abstract

A survey into the attitudes of anaesthetists to features in monitoring instruments, particularly the design of alarms, visual warnings, alarm limits and the general instrument interface is reported. Questions in the survey had short introductions outlining a clinical scenario followed by items that proposed alternative design features that an instrument might have. Participants were asked to grade their responses to these alternatives on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The results suggest that anaesthetists would welcome the use of more advanced technology in instrument design. They prefer context-specific messages and alarms. They reject overt control systems for delivering anaesthesia, except for use in exceptional circumstances. Generally, the preferences of anaesthetists are consistent with known principles of safe, ergonomic design.

Br J Anaesth 2000; 85: 781–4

Footnotes

* Corresponding author


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
T. C. Walsh and P. C. W. Beatty
Establishing scales of perceived severity for clinical situations during anaesthesia
Br. J. Anaesth., September 1, 2005; 95(3): 339 - 343.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.Home page
S. B. Wachter, J. Agutter, N. Syroid, F. Drews, M. B. Weinger, and D. Westenskow
The Employment of an Iterative Design Process to Develop a Pulmonary Graphical Display
J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc., July 1, 2003; 10(4): 363 - 372.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.