Search

Viscoelastic point-of-care haemostatic resuscitation methods, such as ROTEM or TEG, are crucial in deciding on time-efficient personalised coagulation interventions. International transfusion guidelines emphasise increased patient safety and reduced treatment costs. We analysed care providers’ perceptions of ROTEM to identify perceived strengths and areas for improvement. We conducted a single-centre, mixed qualitative–quantitative study consisting of interviews followed by an online survey. Using a template approach, we first identified themes in the responses given by care providers about ROTEM. Later, the participants rated six statements based on the identified themes on five-point Likert scales in an online questionnaire. Seventy-seven participants were interviewed, and 52 completed the online survey. By analysing user perceptions, we identified ten themes. The most common positive theme was “high accuracy”. The most common negative theme was “need for training”. In the online survey, 94% of participants agreed that monitoring the real-time ROTEM temograms helps to initiate targeted treatment more quickly and 81% agreed that recurrent ROTEM training would be beneficial. Anaesthesia care providers found ROTEM to be accurate and quickly available to support decision-making in dynamic and complex haemostatic situations. However, clinicians identified that interpreting ROTEM is a complex and cognitively demanding task that requires significant training needs.

Decision confidence—the subjective belief to have made the right decision—is central in planning actions in a complex environment such as the medical field. It is unclear by which factors it is influenced. We analyzed a pooled data set of eight studies and performed a multicenter online survey assessing anesthesiologists’ opinions on decision confidence. By applying mixed models and using multiple imputation to determine the effect of missing values from the dataset on the results, we investigated how task performance, perceived workload, the utilization of user-centered medical diagnostic devices, job, work experience, and gender affected decision confidence. The odds of being confident increased with better task performance (OR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.94 to 1.7; p = 0.12; after multiple imputation OR: 3.19, 95% CI: 2.29 to 4.45; p < 0.001) and when user-centered medical devices were used (OR: 5.01, 95% CI: 3.67 to 6.85; p < 0.001; after multiple imputation OR: 3.58, 95% CI: 2.65 to 4.85; p < 0.001). The odds of being confident decreased with higher perceived workload (OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.93 to 0.95; p < 0.001; after multiple imputation, OR: 0.94, 95% CI: 0.93 to 0.95; p < 0.001). Other factors, such as gender, job, or professional experience, did not affect decision confidence. Most anesthesiologists who participated in the online survey agreed that task performance (25 of 30; 83%), perceived workload (24 of 30; 80%), work experience (28 of 30; 93%), and job (21 of 30; 70%) influence decision confidence. Improved task performance, lower perceived workload, and user-centered design in medical equipment enhanced the decision confidence of anesthesia providers.

As the interpretation of viscoelastic coagulation test results remains challenging, we created Visual Clot, an animated blood clot aiming to facilitate raw rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) parameters. This study investigated anesthesia personnel’s cognitive processing in managing simulated bleeding scenarios using eye-tracking technology. This multicenter, international, computer-based study across five large, central European hospitals included 35 participants with minimal to no prior experience interpreting viscoelastic test results. Using eye-tracking technology and an iPad tagged with quick response codes, we defined the time to treatment decision and the time on screen surface in seconds of correctly solved scenarios as our outcomes. The median time to treatment decision was 52 s for Visual Clot and 205 s for ROTEM (p < 0.0001). The probability of solving the scenario correctly was more than 8 times higher when using Visual Clot than when using ROTEM (Hazard ratio [HR] 8.54, 95% CI from 6.5 to 11.21; p < 0.0001). Out of 194 correctly answered scenarios of participants with the eye-tracker, 154 (79.4%) were solved with Visual Clot and 40 (20.6%) with ROTEM. Participants spent on average 30 s less looking at the screen surface with Visual Clot compared to ROTEM (Coefficient −30.74 s, 95% CI from −39.27 to −22.27; p < 0.0001). For a comparison of the two modalities in terms of information transfer, we calculated the percentage of time on the screen surface of the overall time to treatment decision, which with Visual Clot was 14 percentage points shorter than with ROTEM (Coefficient −14.55, 95% CI from −20.05 to −9.12; p < 0.0001). Visual Clot seems to improve perception and detection of coagulopathies and leads to earlier initiation of the appropriate treatment. In a high-pressure working environment such as the operating and the resuscitation room, correct and timely decisions regarding bleeding management may have a relevant impact on patients’ outcomes.