Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCatchpole, K.
dc.contributor.authorBisantz, A.
dc.contributor.authorHallbeck, M.S.
dc.contributor.authorWeigl, M.
dc.contributor.authorRandell, Rebecca
dc.contributor.authorKossack, M.
dc.contributor.authorAnger, J.T.
dc.date.accessioned2020-03-04T11:11:15Z
dc.date.accessioned2020-05-01T14:28:40Z
dc.date.available2020-03-04T11:11:15Z
dc.date.available2020-05-01T14:28:40Z
dc.date.issued2019-07
dc.identifier.citationCatchpole K, Bisantz A, Hallbeck MS et al (2019) Human factors in robotic assisted surgery: Lessond from studies 'in the Wild' Applied Ergonomics. 78: 270-276.
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10454/17761
dc.descriptionYes
dc.description.abstractThis article reviews studies conducted “in the wild” that explore the “ironies of automation” in Robotic Assisted Surgery (RAS). Workload may be reduced for the surgeon, but increased for other team members, with postural stress relocated rather than reduced, and the introduction of a range of new challenges, for example, in the need to control multiple arms, with multiple instruments; and the increased demands of being physically separated from the team. Workflow disruptions were not compared with other surgeries; however, the prevalence of equipment and training disruptions differs from other types of surgeries. A consistent observation is that communication and coordination problems are relatively frequent, suggesting that the surgical team may need to be trained to use specific verbal and non-verbal cues during surgery. RAS also changes the necessary size of the operating room instrument cleaning processes. These studies demonstrate the value of clinically-based human factors engineers working alongside surgical teams to improve the delivery of RAS.
dc.description.sponsorshipNational Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research (HS&DR) Programme (project number 12/5005/04). We acknowledge the support of the NIHR Clinical Research Network. The research by Hallbeck and colleagues made possible in part by the Mayo Clinic Robert D. and Patricia E. Kern Center for the Science of Health Care Delivery. The research of Weigl and colleagues was supported by the Munich Centre for Health Sciences (MC-Health). The research by Bisantz and colleagues was supported by the University at Buffalo, the ATLAS lab, and the Roswell Park Alliance Foundation. The research by Anger and Catchpole was funded by National Institute of Biomedical Imaging & Biomedical Engineering Award R03EB017447 (Catchpole/Anger) and the UCLA Medical Student Training in Aging Research Program-the National Institute on Aging (T35AG026736), the John A. Hartford Foundation, and the Lillian R. Gleitsman Foundation.
dc.language.isoenen
dc.rights© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Reproduced in accordance with the publisher's self-archiving policy. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license.
dc.subjectsurgery
dc.subjectRobotics
dc.subjectHuman factors
dc.subjectAutomation
dc.subjectWorkload
dc.subjectTeamwork
dc.titleHuman factors in robotic assisted surgery: Lessons from studies 'in the Wild'
dc.status.refereedYes
dc.date.Accepted2018-02-16
dc.date.application2018-03-02
dc.typeArticle
dc.type.versionAccepted manuscript
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2018.02.011
dc.date.updated2020-03-04T11:11:15Z
refterms.dateFOA2020-05-01T14:30:41Z


Item file(s)

Thumbnail
Name:
Randell_Applied_Ergonomics.pdf
Size:
340.7Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record