English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

Effect of Monitor Placement on Situational Awareness and Visual Attention in Simulated Neonatal Resuscitations