Use of eye-tracking to evaluate human factors in accessing neonatal resuscitation equipment and medications for advanced resuscitation: A simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".