Use of eye-tracking to evaluate human factors in accessing neonatal resuscitation equipment and medications for advanced resuscitation: A simulation study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Emergency neonatal resuscitation equipment is often organized into “code carts”. Simulation studies previously examined human factors of neonatal code carts and equipment; however, visual attention analysis with eye-tracking might further inform equipment design. Objectives To evaluate human factors of neonatal resuscitation equipment by: (1) comparing epinephrine preparation speed from adult pre-filled syringe vs. medication vial, (2) comparing equipment retrieval times from two carts and (3) utilizing eye-tracking to study visual attention and user experience. Methods We conducted a 2-site randomized cross-over simulation study. Site 1 is a perinatal NICU with carts focused on airway management. Site 2 is a surgical NICU with carts improved with compartments and task-based kits. Participants were fitted with eye-tracking glasses then randomized to prepare two epinephrine doses using two methods, starting with an adult epinephrine prefilled syringe or a multiple access vial. Participants then obtained items for 7 tasks from their local cart. Post-simulation, participants completed surveys and semi-structured interviews while viewing eye-tracked video of their performance. Epinephrine preparation times were compared between the two methods. Equipment retrieval times and survey responses were compared between sites. Eye-tracking was analyzed for areas of interest (AOIs) and gaze shifts between AOIs. Interviews were subject to thematic analysis. Results Forty HCPs participated (20/site). It was faster to draw the first epinephrine dose using the medication vial (29.9s vs. 47.6s, p < 0.001). Time to draw the second dose was similar (21.2s vs. 19s, p = 0.563). It was faster to obtain equipment from the Perinatal cart (164.4s v 228.9s, p < 0.027). Participants at both sites found their carts easy to use. Participants looked at many AOIs (54 for Perinatal vs. 76 for Surgical carts, p < 0.001) with 1 gaze shifts/second for both. Themes for epinephrine preparation include: Facilitators and Threats to Performance, and Discrepancies due to Stimulation Conditions. Themes for code carts include: Facilitators and Threats to Performance, Orienting with Prescan, and Suggestions for Improvement. Suggested cart improvements include: adding prompts, task-based grouping, and positioning small equipment more visibly. Task-based kits were welcomed, but more orientation is needed. Conclusions Eye-tracked simulations provided human factors assessment of emergency neonatal code carts and epinephrine preparation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».