Wearable technology-based metrics for predicting operator performance during cardiac catheterisation

Jonathan Currie, Raymond R Bond, Paul McCullagh, Pauline Black, Dewar D Finlay, Stephen Gallagher, Peter Kearney, Aaron Peace, Danail Stoyanov, Colin D Bicknell, Stephen Leslie, Anthony G Gallagher, Jonathan Currie, Raymond R Bond, Paul McCullagh, Pauline Black, Dewar D Finlay, Stephen Gallagher, Peter Kearney, Aaron Peace, Danail Stoyanov, Colin D Bicknell, Stephen Leslie, Anthony G Gallagher

Abstract

Introduction: Unobtrusive metrics that can auto-assess performance during clinical procedures are of value. Three approaches to deriving wearable technology-based metrics are explored: (1) eye tracking, (2) psychophysiological measurements [e.g. electrodermal activity (EDA)] and (3) arm and hand movement via accelerometry. We also measure attentional capacity by tasking the operator with an additional task to track an unrelated object during the procedure.

Methods: Two aspects of performance are measured: (1) using eye gaze and psychophysiology metrics and (2) measuring attentional capacity via an additional unrelated task (to monitor a visual stimulus/playing cards). The aim was to identify metrics that can be used to automatically discriminate between levels of performance or at least between novices and experts. The study was conducted using two groups: (1) novice operators and (2) expert operators. Both groups made two attempts at a coronary angiography procedure using a full-physics virtual reality simulator. Participants wore eye tracking glasses and an E4 wearable wristband. Areas of interest were defined to track visual attention on display screens, including: (1) X-ray, (2) vital signs, (3) instruments and (4) the stimulus screen (for measuring attentional capacity).

Results: Experts provided greater dwell time (63% vs 42%, p = 0.03) and fixations (50% vs 34%, p = 0.04) on display screens. They also provided greater dwell time (11% vs 5%, p = 0.006) and fixations (9% vs 4%, p = 0.007) when selecting instruments. The experts' performance for tracking the unrelated object during the visual stimulus task negatively correlated with total errors (r = - 0.95, p = 0.0009). Experts also had a higher standard deviation of EDA (2.52 µS vs 0.89 µS, p = 0.04).

Conclusions: Eye tracking metrics may help discriminate between a novice and expert operator, by showing that experts maintain greater visual attention on the display screens. In addition, the visual stimulus study shows that an unrelated task can measure attentional capacity. Trial registration This work is registered through clinicaltrials.gov, a service of the U.S. National Health Institute, and is identified by the trial reference: NCT02928796.

Keywords: Attentional capacity; Eye tracking; Simulation-based training; Surgical simulation; Wearable technology.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

Ethical approval for this study was granted across the island of Ireland: (1) Ulster University (ref: FCEEFC 20160630), (2) University College Cork (ref: ECM 4 (g) 09/08/16).

Informed consent

All subjects received informed consent as approved by ethics committee.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Main image: Mentice VIST-Lab simulator, with the four AOIs identified. Bottom right: a participant during procedural performance, wearing eye tracking glasses connected to the portable recording device placed to the left on the simulator table and wearing the Empatica’s E4 wristband on their wrist (hidden)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Card acknowledgement % effect on total errors for first attempt. (1) All participants (full dataset), (2) novice only, (3) expert only
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Card acknowledgement % relationship with total errors for the final attempt. (1) All participants (full dataset) included, (2) a clear outlier (a novice) is removed from dataset, (3) novice only, (4) novice only with outlier removed, (5) expert only
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Group comparison for transition frequency over all AOIs
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Group comparison of calculated SD for recorded EDA during both attempts

References

    1. Kohn L, Corrigan J, Donaldson M. To Err is human: building a safer health system. USA: National Academies Press; 2000.
    1. Zhang J, Patel VL, Johnson TR. Medical error: is the solution medical or cognitive? J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2002;9(6 Suppl):S75–S77. doi: 10.1197/jamia.M1232.
    1. Ericsson KA, Krampe RT, Tesch-Römer C. The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychol Rev. 1993;100(3):363–406. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.100.3.363.
    1. Pedowitz RA, Nicandri GT, Angelo RL, Ryu RKN, Gallagher AG. Objective assessment of knot-tying proficiency with the fundamentals of arthroscopic surgery training program workstation and knot tester. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(10):1872–1879. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.06.021.
    1. Angelo RL, Ryu RKN, Pedowitz RA, Beach W, Burns J, Dodds J, Field L, Getelman M, Hobgood R, McIntyre L, Gallagher AG. A proficiency-based progression training curriculum coupled with a model simulator results in the acquisition of a superior arthroscopic bankart skill set. Arthroscopy. 2015;31(10):1854–1871. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2015.07.001.
    1. Cant RP, Cooper SJ. Simulation in the Internet age: the place of Web-based simulation in nursing education: an integrative review. Nurse Educ Today. 2014;34(12):1435–1442. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2014.08.001.
    1. Sliney A, Murphy D (2008) JDoc: a serious game for medical learning. In: Proceedings of the first international conference on advanced computer interaction ACHI 2008, pp 131–136
    1. Persson J, Dalholm EH, Wallergård M, Johansson G. Evaluating interactive computer-based scenarios designed for learning medical technology. Nurse Educ Pract. 2014;14(6):579–585. doi: 10.1016/j.nepr.2014.05.004.
    1. Lear R, Riga C, Godfrey AD, Falaschetti E, Cheshire NJ, Van Herzeele I, Norton C, Vincent C, Darzi AW, Bicknell CD, LEAP Study Collaborators Multicentre observational study of surgical system failures in aortic procedures and their effect on patient outcomes. Br J Surg. 2016;103(11):1467–1475. doi: 10.1002/bjs.10275.
    1. Fong A, Hoffman DJ, Zachary Hettinger A, Fairbanks RJ, Bisantz AM. Identifying visual search patterns in eye gaze data; gaining insights into physician visual workflow. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(6):196. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv196.
    1. Zheng B, Tien G, Atkins SM, Swindells C, Tanin H, Meneghetti A, Qayumi KA, Panton ONM. Surgeon’s vigilance in the operating room. Am J Surg. 2011;201(5):673–677. doi: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.01.016.
    1. Zhou S, Gali R, Paasche-Orlow M, Bickmore TW (2014) Afraid to ask: proactive assistance with healthcare documents using eye tracking. In: Proceedings of the extended abstracts 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems—CHI EA’14, pp 1669–1674
    1. Breen CJ, Bond R, Finlay D. An evaluation of eye tracking technology in the assessment of 12 lead electrocardiography interpretation. J Electrocardiol. 2014;47(6):922–929. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2014.08.008.
    1. O’Meara P, Munro G, Williams B, Cooper S, Bogossian F, Ross L, Sparkes L, Browning M, McClounan M. Developing situation awareness amongst nursing and paramedicine students utilizing eye tracking technology and video debriefing techniques: a proof of concept paper. Int Emerg Nurs. 2015;23(2):94–99. doi: 10.1016/j.ienj.2014.11.001.
    1. Just MA, Carpenter PA. A theory of reading: from eye fixations to comprehension. Psychol Rev. 1980;87(4):329–354. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.87.4.329.
    1. Stiegler MP, Gaba DM. Eye tracking to acquire insight into the cognitive processes of clinicians. Simul Healthc J Soc Simul Healthc. 2015;10(5):329–330. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000116.
    1. Asan O, Yang Y. Using eye trackers for usability evaluation of health information technology: a systematic literature review. JMIR Hum Factors. 2015;2(1):e5. doi: 10.2196/humanfactors.4062.
    1. Suetsugu N, Ohki M, Kaku T. Quantitative analysis of nursing observation employing a portable eye-tracker. Open J Nurs. 2016;6(1):53–61. doi: 10.4236/ojn.2016.61006.
    1. Esysenc M, Keane M. Cognitive psychology: a student handbook. Hove: Earlbaum; 1995.
    1. Broadbent D. Selective and control processes. Cognition. 1981;10:53–58. doi: 10.1016/0010-0277(81)90024-X.
    1. Gallagher A, Satava R, O’Sullivan G. Attentional capacity: an essential aspect of surgeon performance. Ann Surg. 2015;261(3):e60–e61. doi: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e318296c473.
    1. Weaver W. The mathematics of communication. Sci Am. 1949;181(1):11–5. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican0749-11.
    1. Smith HV. Is there a magical number 7 ± 2? The role of exposure duration and information content in immediate recall. Irish J Psychol. 1992;13(2):85–97. doi: 10.1080/03033910.1992.10557870.
    1. Holmqvist K, et al. Eye tracking: a comprehensive guide to methods and measures. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2011.
    1. Currie J, Bond RR, McCullagh P, Black P, Finlay DD, Peace A. Eye tracking the visual attention of nurses interpreting simulated vital signs scenarios: mining metrics to discriminate between performance level. IEEE Trans Hum Mach Syst. 2018;48(2):113–124. doi: 10.1109/THMS.2017.2754880.
    1. McLaughlin L, Bond R, Hughes C, McConnell J, McFadden S. Computing eye gaze metrics for the automatic assessment of radiographer performance during X-ray image interpretation. Int J Med Inform. 2017;105:11–21. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2017.03.001.
    1. Bond RR, Zhu T, Finlay DD, Drew B, Kligfield PD, Guldenring D, Breen C, Gallagher AG, Daly MJ, Clifford GD. Assessing computerized eye tracking technology for gaining insight into expert interpretation of the 12-lead electrocardiogram: an objective quantitative approach. J Electrocardiol. 2014;47(6):895–906. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2014.07.011.
    1. Bond RR, Finlay DD, Breen C, Boyd K, Nugent CD, Black ND, Macfarlane PW, Guldenring D (2012) Eye tracking in the assessment of electrocardiogram interpretation techniques. In: Computing in cardiology (CinC). IEEE, pp 581–584
    1. Mazomenos EB, Chang P-L, Rippel RA, Rolls A, Hawkes DJ, Bicknell CD, et al. Catheter manipulation analysis for objective performance and technical skills assessment in transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Int J Comput Assist Radiol Surg. 2016;11:1121–1131. doi: 10.1007/s11548-016-1391-6.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonner