Fatigue in Aeromedicine: A Validity Study of the Flight Risk Assessment

IF 1 4区 心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED International Journal of Aerospace Psychology Pub Date : 2020-03-16 DOI:10.1080/24721840.2020.1735939
J. Nosker, A. Cornelius, M. Lassen, T. Bragg, Jennifer Killeen
{"title":"Fatigue in Aeromedicine: A Validity Study of the Flight Risk Assessment","authors":"J. Nosker, A. Cornelius, M. Lassen, T. Bragg, Jennifer Killeen","doi":"10.1080/24721840.2020.1735939","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Objective: A validation study was conducted on the Flight Risk Assessment (FRA), a unique self-report fatigue measure for flight medics on duty. Background: Air medical professionals face unique challenges above and beyond the difficulty of working in a hospital setting or prehospital ground medicine. Providers frequently work multiple 24-hour shifts, resulting in circadian rhythm disturbance and cumulative sleep loss. The plane environment and the effects of flight are also contributory to fatigue; however, air medics must engage in emergent, time-sensitive, life-saving procedures despite these challenging circumstances. Although the aeromedical industry has rapidly expanded in the past several decades, the field of flight medicine lacks validated tools to evaluate fatigue levels, and many companies rely on flight providers’ recognition of fatigue to prevent work-related mistakes. Method: To establish construct validity, scores on the FRA were compared to scores on the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT), an objective measure of fatigue. Results: The results indicate that a total of five questions on the FRA was significantly and strongly correlated with mean reaction time on the PVT (r = .60, p = .001). Perceived fitness for duty was poorly correlated with fatigue levels as measured by the FRA (r < .01) suggesting medics may have difficulty recognizing when they are fatigued and fit for duty. Conclusion: The air medical industry is rapidly expanding, and valid and reliable measures are indicated to assess fatigue levels among providers. Initial findings suggest the FRA is an efficient tool to objectively measure the fatigue levels of air medics through a self-report measure.","PeriodicalId":41693,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/24721840.2020.1735939","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Aerospace Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/24721840.2020.1735939","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, APPLIED","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

ABSTRACT Objective: A validation study was conducted on the Flight Risk Assessment (FRA), a unique self-report fatigue measure for flight medics on duty. Background: Air medical professionals face unique challenges above and beyond the difficulty of working in a hospital setting or prehospital ground medicine. Providers frequently work multiple 24-hour shifts, resulting in circadian rhythm disturbance and cumulative sleep loss. The plane environment and the effects of flight are also contributory to fatigue; however, air medics must engage in emergent, time-sensitive, life-saving procedures despite these challenging circumstances. Although the aeromedical industry has rapidly expanded in the past several decades, the field of flight medicine lacks validated tools to evaluate fatigue levels, and many companies rely on flight providers’ recognition of fatigue to prevent work-related mistakes. Method: To establish construct validity, scores on the FRA were compared to scores on the Psychomotor Vigilance Test (PVT), an objective measure of fatigue. Results: The results indicate that a total of five questions on the FRA was significantly and strongly correlated with mean reaction time on the PVT (r = .60, p = .001). Perceived fitness for duty was poorly correlated with fatigue levels as measured by the FRA (r < .01) suggesting medics may have difficulty recognizing when they are fatigued and fit for duty. Conclusion: The air medical industry is rapidly expanding, and valid and reliable measures are indicated to assess fatigue levels among providers. Initial findings suggest the FRA is an efficient tool to objectively measure the fatigue levels of air medics through a self-report measure.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
航空医学中的疲劳:飞行风险评估的有效性研究
摘要目的:对飞行风险评估(FRA)进行了验证研究,这是一种针对飞行医务人员的独特的自我报告疲劳测量方法。背景:除了在医院工作或院前地面医学的困难之外,航空医疗专业人员还面临着独特的挑战。提供者经常24小时轮班工作,导致昼夜节律紊乱和累积睡眠不足。飞机环境和飞行的影响也会导致疲劳;然而,空中医护人员必须参与紧急的、时间敏感的、挽救生命的程序,尽管存在这些挑战性的情况。尽管航空医疗行业在过去几十年中迅速扩张,但飞行医学领域缺乏评估疲劳程度的有效工具,许多公司依靠飞行供应商对疲劳的识别来防止与工作相关的错误。方法:为了建立结构有效性,将FRA的得分与心理运动警觉测试(PVT)的得分进行比较,PVT是疲劳的客观测量。结果:结果表明,关于FRA的总共五个问题与PVT的平均反应时间显著且强相关(r=.60,p=.001)。FRA测量的疲劳水平与感知是否适合工作的相关性较差(r<.01),这表明医护人员可能难以识别他们何时疲劳并适合工作。结论:航空医疗行业正在迅速发展,需要采取有效可靠的措施来评估供应商的疲劳程度。初步发现表明,FRA是一种通过自我报告测量来客观测量空中医护人员疲劳水平的有效工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
7.70%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Qualitative Analysis of General Aviation Pilots’ Aviation Safety Reporting System Incident Narratives Using the Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Effective Monitoring for Early Detection of Hypoxia in Fighter Pilots The Effects of Aeronautical Decision-Making Models on Student Pilots’ Situational Awareness and Cognitive Workload in Simulated Non-Normal Flight Deck Environment The Relationship between Preparation, Impression Management, and Interview Performance in High-Stakes Personnel Selection: A Field Study of Airline Pilot Applicants It Was This Wing Wasn’t It? Identifying the Importance of Verbal Communication in Aviation Maintenance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1