Effect of Monitor Placement on Situational Awareness and Visual Attention in Simulated Neonatal Resuscitations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Decision-making in neonatal resuscitation depends on clinical evaluation, oxygen saturation and heart-rate. However, the position of vital signs monitors varies between institutions and might lead to obstructed or difficult to see displays, which might affect Health Care Provider (HCP) performance. OBJECTIVES To compare Situation Awareness (SA), Neonatal Resuscitation (NRP) checklist score, Visual Attention (VA) and participant satisfaction during simulated neonatal resuscitations using two vital signs monitors locations. DESIGN/METHODS NRP-trained HCPs were recruited from a tertiary Neonatal Intensive Care Unit and randomized to either central (eye-level on the radiant warmer) or peripheral (left of the warmer) monitor placement. Following an orientation scenario, each HCP lead a resuscitation requiring intubation and chest compressions with a high-fidelity manikin (Newborn HAL, Gaumard Scientific, Miami, FL) and a standardized assistant. Each scenario was paused at 3 predetermined points and the HCP was asked 5 SA questions at each pause, per the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Tool (SAGAT) format. Simulations were video-recorded to analyze SAGAT responses and performance rating using a modified NRP checklist. VA was recorded using eye-tracking glasses (Tobii Pro, Tobii Technology Inc., Falls Church, VA) worn by participants. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney U test. A post-simulation survey examined user preference. RESULTS We randomized 30 HCPs; all were analyzed for SA and NRP checklist scores. Twenty-two eye-tracking recordings were of sufficient quality and analyzed. SAGAT scores (median 11/15 vs. 12/15, p=0.52) and NRP Checklist Scores (median 46/50, p=0.75) were similar between groups. Distribution of VA was also similar in both groups. In the post-simulation survey, all HCPs found central monitor placement convenient, compared with only 8/15 in peripheral placement. CONCLUSION During simulated neonatal resuscitation, HCPs found central monitor placement more convenient. However, no differences in accuracy of situation awareness responses, NRP checklist scores, or visual attention were found. Hi-fidelity simulation, SAGAT, and eye-tracking can be used to evaluate physical ergonomics of neonatal resuscitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".