A vibro-tactile display for clinical monitoring: real-time evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Vibro-tactile displays use human skin to convey information from physiological monitors to anesthesiologists, providing cues about changes in the status of the patient. In this investigation, we evaluated, in a real-time clinical environment, the usability and wearability of a novel vibro-tactile display belt recently developed by our group, and determined its accuracy in identifying events when used by anesthesiologists. METHODS: A prospective observational study design was used. During routine anesthesia, a standard physiological monitor was connected to a software tool that used algorithms to automatically identify changing trends in mean noninvasive arterial blood pressure, expired minute ventilation, peak airway pressure, and end-tidal carbon dioxide partial pressure. The software was wirelessly interfaced to a vibro-tactile belt worn by the anesthesiologist. Each physiological variable was mapped to 1 of 4 tactor locations within the belt. The direction (increase/decrease) and 2 levels of change (small/large) were encoded in the stimulation patterns. A training session was completed by each anesthesiologist. The system was activated in real-time during anesthesia alongside routine physiological monitors. When the algorithms detected changes in the patient, the belt vibrated at the appropriate location with the pattern corresponding to the level and direction of change. Using a touch screen monitor the anesthesiologist was to enter the vibro-tactile message by first identifying the variable, then identifying the level and direction of change. Usability and wearability questionnaires were to be completed. The percentage of correct identification of the physiological trend, the direction of change, and the level of change were primary outcome variables. The mean usability score and wearability results were secondary outcome variables. We hypothesized that anesthesiologists would correctly identify the events communicated to them through the vibro-tactile belt 90% of the time, and that anesthesiologists would find the vibro-tactile belt usable and wearable. RESULTS: Seventeen anesthesiologists evaluated the display during 57 cases. The belt was operational for a mean (SD) duration of 75 (41) minutes per case. Seven cases were excluded from analysis because of technical failures. Eighty-one percent (confidence interval [CI], 77% to 84%) of all stimuli were decoded. The physiological trend, the direction of change, and the level of change were correctly identified for 97.7% (CI 96%-99%), 94.9% (CI 92%-97%), and 93.5% of these stimuli (CI, 91%-96%), respectively. Fourteen anesthesiologists completed the usability and wearability questionnaires. The mean usability score was 4.8 of a maximum usability score of 7. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiologists found a vibro-tactile belt to be wearable and usable and could accurately decode vibro-tactile messages in a real-time clinical environment.

Identification by families of pediatric adverse events and near misses overlooked by health care providers.

BACKGROUND: Identifying adverse events and near misses is essential to improving safety in the health care system. Patients are capable of reliably identifying and reporting adverse events. The effect of a patient safety reporting system used by families of pediatric inpatients on reporting of adverse events by health care providers has not previously been investigated. METHODS: Between Nov. 1, 2008, and Nov. 30, 2009, families of children discharged from a single ward of British Columbia's Children's Hospital were asked to respond to a questionnaire about adverse events and near misses during the hospital stay. Rates of reporting by health care providers for this period were compared with rates for the previous year. Family reports for specific incidents were matched with reports by health care providers to determine overlap. RESULTS: A total of 544 familes responded to the questionnaire. The estimated absolute increase in reports by health care providers per 100 admissions was 0.5% (95% confidence interval -1.8% to 2.7%). A total of 321 events were identified in 201 of the 544 family reports. Of these, 153 (48%) were determined to represent legitimate patient safety concerns. Only 8 (2.5%) of the adverse events reported by families were also reported by health care providers. INTERPRETATION: The introduction of a family-based system for reporting adverse events involving pediatric inpatients, administered at the time of discharge, did not change rates of reporting of adverse events and near misses by health care providers. Most reports submitted by families were not duplicated in the reporting system for health care providers, which suggests that families and staff members view safety-related events differently. However, almost half of the family reports represented legitimate patient safety concerns. Families appeared capable of providing valuable information for improving the safety of pediatric inpatients.