Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking AbilityFOCUSNCT07615582
Clinical Performance and Multitasking in Anesthesia : a Simulation-based Study
An observational study of Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking Ability and Clinical Performance, run by University Hospital, Grenoble at 1 site in France.
Trial summary
Cognitive failure under multitasking conditions has been demonstrated in various settings, including healthcare. However, in anesthesiology, the impact of multitasking on clinical performance has not yet been fully characterized. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 years and olderHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking Ability, Clinical Performance, Simulation Training
- What is being tested?
- Multitasking
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine
- How many people
- 35 participants
- Where
- 1 siteFrance
- Study dates
- 9 Jun 2026to Dec 2026
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- Not yet: the study is under way
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 years and older
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult, Older adult
Study population: The study population consists of a sample of anesthesiology and intensive care physicians working at Grenoble University Hospital.
Who may be able to join
- Anesthesiology and intensive care resident or attending physician
- Written informed consent
Who cannot join
- None
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country. Contact the study team or a site near you to ask about taking part.
France1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Centre d'Évaluation et de Simulation Alpes Recherche (CESAR)
Grenoble, 38700
Jean-Noël Evain, MD, PhD, 0476766829, jnevain@chu-grenoble.fr
Alexis Lesage, MD, 0476766829, ALesage@chu-grenoble.fr
About this study
Cognitive failure under multitasking conditions has been demonstrated in various settings, including healthcare. However, in anesthesiology, the impact of multitasking on clinical performance has not yet been fully characterized.
The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of multitasking on anesthesiologists' clinical performance in a simulated setting.
Read the detailed description
This study is a prospective, single-center, non-interventional study. The study was classified as non-interventional by the institutional research committee, as the intervention consists of simulation training and the study population comprises healthcare practitioners.
The study participants are anesthesiologists, including attending physicians and residents. Each participant will serve as their own control. The study will comprise two visits: one intervention visit consisting of a multitasking simulation session, and one control visit involving clinical questions administered under quiet conditions. The order of the visits will be randomized between participants using a crossover design in order to minimize potential learning bias.
The multitasking condition will consist of performing manual mask ventilation on a manikin while answering oral clinical questions administered in the form of Script Concordance Tests (SCTs). Participants will be instructed to ventilate the manikin with a tidal volume of 500 mL and a respiratory rate of 15 breaths/minute.
Clinical reasoning under quiet conditions will consist of answering oral clinical questions in the SCT format.
The study will use a 44-item Script Concordance Test (SCT) distributed across 20 anesthesiology clinical vignettes. The vignettes are distributed as follows: 8 vignettes with 3 items, 8 vignettes with 2 items, and 4 vignettes with 1 item. The vignettes were adapted, without modification of their content, to be compatible with oral administration and the simulation scenario.
In addition, for each participant, the SCT clinical vignettes will be randomized between the "simulation vignettes" and the "control vignettes," with stratification according to the number of items per vignette. Five vignettes will be allocated to the intervention condition and fifteen to the control condition. This approach will help limit the effect of differences in vignette difficulty that could otherwise bias the results. At the group level, all clinical vignettes will ultimately be assessed in both the simulation and control conditions.
Detailed information is available in the study protocol.
- Conditions
- Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking Ability, Clinical Performance, Simulation Training, Simulation Based Medical Education, Clinical Reasoning, Anesthesia
- Being tested
- Multitasking
- Medical subject headings
- Multitasking Behavior
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
MultitaskingOther
Simulation training session during which participants will be required to multitask by performing manual mask ventilation on a manikin while answering oral clinical questions administered in the form of Script Concordance Tests (SCTs).
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Concordance score with the expert panel on a Script Concordance Test (SCT)
Each item of the SCT is scored out of 1 point, and the sum of the points, converted to a 100-point scale, defines the percentage of concordance with the expert panel.
Measured: At two time points: - During simulation session under multitasking conditions - During control visit under quiet conditions
Secondary outcomes (4)
Manual ventilation performance assessed by variance of expiratory tidal volume (ml)
Participants will be instructed to ventilate with an expiratory tidal volume (Vte) between 450 and 500 mL at a respiratory rate of 15 breaths per minute. Variability in Vte will be used as an indicator of the difficulty in complying with these instructions.
Measured: - Training before simulation: baseline - During simulation: ventilation only, ventilation plus clinical questions
Manual ventilation performance assessed by variance of respiratory rate (cycles/minute)
Participants will be instructed to ventilate with an expiratory tidal volume (Vte) between 450 and 500 mL at a respiratory rate of 15 breaths per minute. Variability in respiratory rate will be used as an indicator of the difficulty in complying with these instructions.
Measured: - Training before simulation: baseline - During simulation: ventilation only, ventilation plus clinical questions
Cognitive load assessed by the NASA-TLX index (score out of 100)
The Official NASA Task Load Index (TLX) is a subjective workload assessment tool. By incorporating a multi-dimensional rating procedure, NASA TLX derives an overall workload score based on a weighted average of ratings on six subscales: mental demand, physical demand, temporal demand, performance, effort, frustration.
Measured: A two time points: - Evaluating cognitive load of manual ventilation alone, before simulation after training. - Evaluation cognitive load of multitasking, at the end of the simulation session
Time to answer items of the script concordance test (seconds)
Time between end of question and beggining of answer for each item of the script concordance test.
Evaluates the interruption lag.
Measured: Two time points: intervention and control.
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted29 May 2026
- Study start9 Jun 2026
- Primary completionDec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completionDec 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (7)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking AbilityStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
- Enrolment
- 35 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, Grenoble
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07615582
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- RNIPH-2026-CESAR-FOCUS
- Acronym
- FOCUS
- Status last verified
- Jun 2026
- First submitted
- 22 May 2026
- Last updated
- 2 Jul 2026
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No: Single center study
Publications
Sujka JA, Safcsak K, Bhullar IS, Havron WS 3rd. Simulation-Based Testing of Pager Interruptions During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. J Surg Educ. 2018 Sep-Oct;75(5):1351-1356. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.01.012. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
PubMed 29396277Murji A, Luketic L, Sobel ML, Kulasegaram KM, Leyland N, Posner G. Evaluating the effect of distractions in the operating room on clinical decision-making and patient safety. Surg Endosc. 2016 Oct;30(10):4499-504. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4782-4. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
PubMed 26895919McCurdie T, Sanderson P, Aitken LM. Traditions of research into interruptions in healthcare: A conceptual review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Jan;66:23-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.11.005. Epub 2016 Nov 10.
PubMed 27951432Adams TN, Rho JC. Multitasking simulation: Present application and future directions. Med Teach. 2017 Feb;39(2):120-122. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1230666. Epub 2016 Sep 15.
PubMed 27633071Jackson KM, Shaw TH, Helton WS. Evaluating the dual-task decrement within a simulated environment: Word recall and visual search. Appl Ergon. 2023 Jan;106:103861. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103861. Epub 2022 Aug 20.
PubMed 35998391Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WT, Day RO. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Apr 26;170(8):683-90. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.65.
PubMed 20421552Gui JL, Nemergut EC, Forkin KT. Distraction in the operating room: A narrative review of environmental and self-initiated distractions and their effect on anesthesia providers. J Clin Anesth. 2021 Feb;68:110110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110110. Epub 2020 Oct 16.
PubMed 33075633
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 2 Jul 2026. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Performance and Multitasking in Anesthesia : a Simulation-based Study
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT07615582
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- FOCUS / RNIPH-2026-CESAR-FOCUS
- Conditions
- Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking Ability, Clinical Performance, Simulation Training, Simulation Based Medical Education, Clinical Reasoning, Anesthesia
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Recruiting
- Enrolment
- 35 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- University Hospital, GrenobleUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 9 Jun 2026 (actual)
- Primary completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- Study completion
- Dec 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 29 May 2026 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
Cognitive failure under multitasking conditions has been demonstrated in various settings, including healthcare. However, in anesthesiology, the impact of multitasking on clinical performance has not yet been fully characterized.
The objective of our study is to evaluate the impact of multitasking on anesthesiologists' clinical performance in a simulated setting.
Detailed description
This study is a prospective, single-center, non-interventional study. The study was classified as non-interventional by the institutional research committee, as the intervention consists of simulation training and the study population comprises healthcare practitioners.
The study participants are anesthesiologists, including attending physicians and residents. Each participant will serve as their own control. The study will comprise two visits: one intervention visit consisting of a multitasking simulation session, and one control visit involving clinical questions administered under quiet conditions. The order of the visits will be randomized between participants using a crossover design in order to minimize potential learning bias.
The multitasking condition will consist of performing manual mask ventilation on a manikin while answering oral clinical questions administered in the form of Script Concordance Tests (SCTs). Participants will be instructed to ventilate the manikin with a tidal volume of 500 mL and a respiratory rate of 15 breaths/minute.
Clinical reasoning under quiet conditions will consist of answering oral clinical questions in the SCT format.
The study will use a 44-item Script Concordance Test (SCT) distributed across 20 anesthesiology clinical vignettes. The vignettes are distributed as follows: 8 vignettes with 3 items, 8 vignettes with 2 items, and 4 vignettes with 1 item. The vignettes were adapted, without modification of their content, to be compatible with oral administration and the simulation scenario.
In addition, for each participant, the SCT clinical vignettes will be randomized between the "simulation vignettes" and the "control vignettes," with stratification according to the number of items per vignette. Five vignettes will be allocated to the intervention condition and fifteen to the control condition. This approach will help limit the effect of differences in vignette difficulty that could otherwise bias the results. At the group level, all clinical vignettes will ultimately be assessed in both the simulation and control conditions.
Detailed information is available in the study protocol.
Study design
- Observational model
- Other
- Time perspective
- Prospective
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 years and older
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
- Study population
- The study population consists of a sample of anesthesiology and intensive care physicians working at Grenoble University Hospital.
Key inclusion criteria (2 listed)
- Anesthesiology and intensive care resident or attending physician
- Written informed consent
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- None
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| MultitaskingSimulation training session during which participants will be required to multitask by performing manual mask ventilation on a manikin while answering oral clinical questions administered in the form of Script Concordance Tests (SCTs). | Other | – |
Primary outcome
Concordance score with the expert panel on a Script Concordance Test (SCT)
Time frame: At two time points: - During simulation session under multitasking conditions - During control visit under quiet conditions
Each item of the SCT is scored out of 1 point, and the sum of the points, converted to a 100-point scale, defines the percentage of concordance with the expert panel.
4 secondary outcomes
Manual ventilation performance assessed by variance of expiratory tidal volume (ml)
Time frame: - Training before simulation: baseline - During simulation: ventilation only, ventilation plus clinical questions
Manual ventilation performance assessed by variance of respiratory rate (cycles/minute)
Time frame: - Training before simulation: baseline - During simulation: ventilation only, ventilation plus clinical questions
Cognitive load assessed by the NASA-TLX index (score out of 100)
Time frame: A two time points: - Evaluating cognitive load of manual ventilation alone, before simulation after training. - Evaluation cognitive load of multitasking, at the end of the simulation session
Time to answer items of the script concordance test (seconds)
Time frame: Two time points: intervention and control.
Results and safety
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 2 Jul 2026.
- Background: PubMed 29396277Sujka JA, Safcsak K, Bhullar IS, Havron WS 3rd. Simulation-Based Testing of Pager Interruptions During Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy. J Surg Educ. 2018 Sep-Oct;75(5):1351-1356. doi: 10.1016/j.jsurg.2018.01.012. Epub 2018 Feb 1.
- Background: PubMed 26895919Murji A, Luketic L, Sobel ML, Kulasegaram KM, Leyland N, Posner G. Evaluating the effect of distractions in the operating room on clinical decision-making and patient safety. Surg Endosc. 2016 Oct;30(10):4499-504. doi: 10.1007/s00464-016-4782-4. Epub 2016 Feb 19.
- Background: PubMed 27951432McCurdie T, Sanderson P, Aitken LM. Traditions of research into interruptions in healthcare: A conceptual review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2017 Jan;66:23-36. doi: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.11.005. Epub 2016 Nov 10.
- Background: PubMed 27633071Adams TN, Rho JC. Multitasking simulation: Present application and future directions. Med Teach. 2017 Feb;39(2):120-122. doi: 10.1080/0142159X.2016.1230666. Epub 2016 Sep 15.
- Background: PubMed 35998391Jackson KM, Shaw TH, Helton WS. Evaluating the dual-task decrement within a simulated environment: Word recall and visual search. Appl Ergon. 2023 Jan;106:103861. doi: 10.1016/j.apergo.2022.103861. Epub 2022 Aug 20.
- Background: PubMed 20421552Westbrook JI, Woods A, Rob MI, Dunsmuir WT, Day RO. Association of interruptions with an increased risk and severity of medication administration errors. Arch Intern Med. 2010 Apr 26;170(8):683-90. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.65.
- Background: PubMed 33075633Gui JL, Nemergut EC, Forkin KT. Distraction in the operating room: A narrative review of environmental and self-initiated distractions and their effect on anesthesia providers. J Clin Anesth. 2021 Feb;68:110110. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2020.110110. Epub 2020 Oct 16.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No. Single center study
Related trials for Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking Ability
Recruiting
Cranberry Polyphenols and Stress Resilience During Multitasking in Healthy Adults
Stress Response, Mental Stress
Recruiting
Cognitive Control & the Functional Organization of the Frontal Cortex
Multitasking Behavior and Neural Representations Associated With Multitasking Ability, Healthy Volunteers
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Multitasking Behavior and Multitasking Ability and Clinical Performance, run by University Hospital, Grenoble at 1 site in France.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 2 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: looking for participants now, as of the sponsor's last update on 2 Jul 2026. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in France. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
This study is still under way. Results are not available in the source record yet.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Jean-Noël Evain, MD, PhD (+33476766829, jnevain@chu-grenoble.fr), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Concordance score with the expert panel on a Script Concordance Test (SCT) (time frame: At two time points: - During simulation session under multitasking conditions - During control visit under quiet conditions). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT07615582, which also lists 7 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 2 Jul 2026.