Effect of monitor positioning on visual attention and situation awareness during neonatal resuscitation: a randomised simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare situation awareness (SA), visual attention (VA) and protocol adherence in simulated neonatal resuscitations using two different monitor positions. DESIGN: Randomised controlled simulation study. SETTINGS: Simulation lab at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare providers (HCPs) with Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) certification within the last 2 years and trained in neonatal endotracheal intubations. INTERVENTION: HCPs were randomised to either central (eye-level on the radiant warmer) or peripheral (above eye-level, wall-mounted) monitor positions. Each led a complex resuscitation with a high-fidelity mannequin and a standardised assistant. To measure SA, situation awareness global assessment tool (SAGAT) was used, where simulations were paused at three predetermined points, with five questions asked each pause. Videos were analysed for SAGAT and adherence to a NRP checklist. Eye-tracking glasses recorded participants' VA. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The main outcome was SA as measured by composite SAGAT score. Secondary outcomes included VA and adherence to NRP checklist. RESULTS: Thirty simulations were performed; 29 were completed per protocol and analysed. Twenty-two eye-tracking recordings were of sufficient quality and analysed. Median composite SAGAT was 11.5/15 central versus 11/15 peripheral, p=0.56. Checklist scores 46/50 central versus 46/50 peripheral, p=0.75. Most VA was directed at the mannequin (30.6% central vs 34.1% peripheral, p=0.76), and the monitor (28.7% central vs 20.5% peripheral, p=0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation, SAGAT and eye-tracking can be used to evaluate human factors of neonatal resuscitation. During simulated neonatal resuscitation, monitor position did not affect SA, VA or protocol adherence.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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".