Time and Number of Displays Impact Critical Signal Detection in Fetal Heart Rate Tracings

ABSTRACT

Interest in centralized monitoring in labor and delivery units is growing because it affords the opportunity to monitor multiple patients simultaneously. However, a long history of research on sustained attention reveals these types of monitoring tasks can be problematic. The goal of the present experiment was to examine the ability of individuals to detect critical signals in fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings in one or more displays over an extended period of time. Seventy-two participants monitored one, two, or four computer-simulated FHR tracings on a computer display for the appearance of late decelerations over a 48-minute vigil. Measures of subjective stress and workload were also obtained before and after the vigil. The results showed that detection accuracy decreased over time and also declined as the number of displays increased. The subjective reports indicated that participants found the task to be stressful and mentally demanding, effortful, and frustrating. The results suggest that centralized monitoring that allows many patients to be monitored simultaneously may impose a detrimental attentional burden on the observer. Furthermore, this seemingly benign task may impose an additional source of stress and mental workload above what is commonly found in labor and delivery units.

KEYWORDS

Fetal heart rate - multiple displays - signal detection - stress - workload

REFERENCES

• 1 Freeman R K. Problems with intrapartum fetal heart rate monitoring interpretation and patient management.  Obstet Gynecol. 2002;  100 813-826
• 2 Menihan C A, Zottoli E K. Electronic Fetal Monitoring: Concepts and Applications. Philadelphia: Lippincott; 2001
• 3 Macones G A, Hankins G DV, Spong C Y, Hauth J, Moore T. The 2008 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development workshop report on electronic fetal monitoring: update on definitions, interpretation, and research guidelines.  Obstet Gynecol. 2008;  112 661-666
• 4 Sweha A, Hacker T W, Nuovo J. Interpretation of the electronic fetal heart rate during labor.  Am Fam Physician. 1999;  59 2487-2500
• 5 Weiss P M, Balducci J, Reed J, Klasko S K, Rust O A. Does centralized monitoring affect perinatal outcome?.  J Matern Fetal Med. 1997;  6 317-319
• 6 Withiam-Leitch M, Shelton J, Fleming E. Central fetal monitoring: effect on perinatal outcomes and cesarean section rate.  Birth. 2006;  33 284-288
• 7 Davies D R, Parasuraman R. The Psychology of Vigilance. London: Academic Press; 1982
• 8 Warm J S. An introduction to vigilance. In: Warm J S, ed. Sustained Attention in Human Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1984: 1-13
• 9 Temple J G, Warm J S, Dember W N, Jones K S, LaGrange C M, Matthews G. The effects of signal salience and caffeine on performance, workload, and stress in an abbreviated vigilance task.  Hum Factors. 2000;  42 183-194
• 10 Mackworth N H. The breakdown of vigilance during prolonged visual search.  Q J Exp Psychol. 1948;  1 6-21
• 11 Buck L. Reaction time as a measure of perceptual vigilance.  Psychol Bull. 1966;  65 291-304
• 12 Wiener E L. Vigilance and inspection. In: Warm J S, ed. Sustained Attention in Human Performance. New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 1984: 207-245
• 13 Weinger M B, Englund C E. Ergonomic and human factors affecting anesthetic vigilance and monitoring performance in the operating room environment.  Anesthesiology. 1990;  73 995-1021
• 14 Johnston W A, Howell W C, Williges R C. The components of complex monitoring.  Organ Behav Hum Perform. 1969;  4 112-124
• 15 Jerison H J. On the decrement function in human performance. In: Buckner D N, Mc Grath J J, eds. Vigilance: A Symposium. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1963: 199-216
• 16 Wiener E L. Multiple channel monitoring.  Ergonomics. 1964;  7 453-460
• 17 Grier R A, Warm J S, Dember W N, Matthews G, Galinsky T L, Parasuraman R. The vigilance decrement reflects limitations in effortful attention, not mindlessness.  Hum Factors. 2003;  45 349-359
• 18 Hancock P A, Warm J S. A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention.  Hum Factors. 1989;  31 519-537
• 19 Helton W S. Validation of a short stress state questionnaire. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting. Santa Monica, CA; Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. 2004: 1238-1242
• 20 Szalma J L, Warm J S, Matthews G et al.. Effects of sensory modality and task duration on performance, workload, and stress in sustained attention.  Hum Factors. 2004;  46 219-233
• 21 Warm J S. Vigilance and target detection. In: Huey B M, Wickens C D, eds. Workload Transition: Implications for Individual and Team Performance. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1993: 139-170
• 22 Warm J S, Dember W N, Hancock P A. Vigilance and workload in automated systems. In: Parasuraman R, Mouloua M, eds. Automation and Human Performance: Theory and Applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1996: 183-200
• 23 Hart S G, Staveland L E. Development of NASA-TLX (task load index): results of empirical and theoretical research. In: Hancock P A, Meshkati N, eds. Human Mental Workload. Amsterdam: Elsevier; 1988: 139-183