Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Provider visual attention on a respiratory function monitor during neonatal resuscitation
  1. Heidi Herrick1,
  2. Danielle Weinberg1,
  3. Charlotte Cecarelli2,
  4. Claire E Fishman3,
  5. Haley Newman4,
  6. Maria C den Boer5,
  7. Tessa Martherus5,
  8. Trixie A Katz6,7,
  9. Vinay Nadkarni8,9,
  10. Arjan B te Pas5,
  11. Elizabeth E Foglia1
  1. 1 Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  2. 2 Nursing, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  3. 3 University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  4. 4 Department of Pediatrics, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  5. 5 Neonatology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, Zuid-Holland, The Netherlands
  6. 6 Neonatology, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  7. 7 Neonatology, Emma Children's Hospital AMC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
  8. 8 Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  9. 9 Center for Simulation, Advanced Education, and Innovation, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Heidi Herrick, Department of Pediatrics, Division of Neonatology, The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA; herrickh{at}email.chop.edu

Abstract

Background A respiratory function monitor (RFM) provides real-time positive pressure ventilation feedback. Whether providers use RFM during neonatal resuscitation is unknown.

Methods Ancillary study to the MONITOR

(NCT03256578) randomised controlled trial. Neonatal resuscitation leaders at two centres wore eye-tracking glasses, and visual attention (VA) patterns were compared between RFM-visible and RFM-masked groups.

Results 14 resuscitations (6 RFM-visible, 8 RFM-masked) were analysed. The median total gaze duration on the RFM was significantly higher with a visible RFM (29% vs 1%, p<0.01), while median total gaze duration on other physical objects was significantly lower with a visible RFM (3% vs 8%, p=0.02). Median total gaze duration on the infant was lower with RFM visible, although not statistically significantly (29% vs 46%, p=0.05).

Conclusion Providers’ VA patterns differed during neonatal resuscitation when the RFM was visible, emphasising the importance of studying the impact of additional delivery room technology on providers’ behaviour.

  • neonatology
  • resuscitation
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Twitter @HerrickHeidi

  • Contributors HH, DW, CC, CF, HN, MCdB, TM, TAK, VN, ABtP and EEF all contributed to study design, data collection, data analysis and manuscript revision. HH and DW drafted the manuscript.

  • Funding This project was supported by the Zoll Foundation (awarded to EEF). HMH is supported by a National Institutes of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Training Grant (T32HD060550-09). EEF is supported by a NICHD Career Development Award (K23HD084727).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent for publication Not required.

  • Ethics approval Local institutional review boards approved this study at both study sites, and consent was obtained from study participants.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data availability statement All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.