Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Quality Improvement Article
  • Published:

Eye-tracking during simulated endotracheal newborn intubation: a prospective, observational multi-center study

Pediatric Research volume 94, pages 443–449 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The aim was to assess health care providers’ (HCPs) visual attention (VA) by using eye-tracking glasses during a simulated neonatal intubation.

Methods

HCPs from three pediatric and neonatal departments (Feldkirch and Vienna, Austria, and Edmonton, Canada) completed a simulated neonatal intubation scenario while wearing eye-tracking glasses (Tobii Pro Glasses 2®, Tobii, Stockholm, Sweden) to record their VA. Main outcomes included duration of intubation, success rate, and VA. We further compared orotracheal and nasotracheal intubations.

Results

30 participants were included. 50% completed the intubation within 30 s (M = 35.40, SD = 16.01). Mostly nasotracheal intubations exceeded the limit. Experience was an important factor in reducing intubation time. VA differed between more and less experienced HCPs as well as between orotracheal and nasotracheal intubations. Participants also focused on different areas of interest (AOIs) depending on the intubator’s experience. More experience was associated with a higher situational awareness (SA) and fewer distractions, which, however, did not transfer to significantly better intubation performance.

Conclusion

Half of the intubations exceeded the recommended time limit. Differences in intubation duration depending on type of intubation were revealed. VA differed between HCPs with different levels of experience and depended on duration and type of intubation.

Impact

  • Simulated neonatal intubation duration differs between orotracheal and nasotracheal intubation.

  • Visual attention during simulated neonatal intubation shows differences depending on intubation duration, intubator experience, type of intubation, and level of distraction.

  • Intubator experience is a vital parameter for reducing intubation duration and improving intubator focus on task-relevant stimuli.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Eye-tracking data.
Fig. 2: Eye-tracking data.
Fig. 3: Eye-tracking data.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

The dataset generated and analyzed during this study is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Sawyer, T. et al. Improving neonatal intubation safety: a journey of a thousand miles. J. Neonatal Perinat. Med. 10, 125–131 (2017).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Weiner, G. M., Zaichkin, J., Kattwinkel, J. Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation 7th edn, (Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics, 2016).

  3. Gelbart, B., Hiscock, R. & Barfield, C. Assessment of neonatal resuscitation performance using video recording in a perinatal centre. J. Paediatr. Child Health 46, 378–383 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Root, L. et al. Improving guideline compliance and documentation through auditing neonatal resuscitation. Front Pediatr. 7, 1–7 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Simma, B. et al. Delivery room management of infants with very low birth weight in 3 european countries—the video apgar study. J. Pediatr. 222, 106–111 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Foglia, E. E. et al. Neonatal intubation practice and outcomes: an international registry study. Pediatrics 143, 1–10 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Robinson, M. È. et al. Trainees success rates with intubation to suction meconium at birth. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 103, F413–F416 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Leone, T. A., Rich, W. & Finer, N. N. Neonatal intubation: success of pediatric trainees. J. Pediatr. 146, 638–641 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Belkhatir, K., Scrivens, A., O’Shea, J. E. & Roehr, C. C. Experience and training in endotracheal intubation and laryngeal mask airway use in neonates: results of a national survey. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 106, 223–224 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Spence, K., Barr, P. Cochrane Neonatal Group. Nasal versus oral intubation for mechanical ventilation of newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. (1999).

  11. Lenclen, R., Narcy, P., Castela, F. & Huard, F. Evaluation of an educational intervention on the standard of neonatal resuscitation: orotracheal versus nasotracheal intubation. Arch. Pediatr. 16, 337–342 (2009).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Wagner, M. et al. Eye-tracking during simulation-based neonatal airway management. Pediatr. Res. 87, 518–522 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Law, B. H. Y. et al. Analysis of neonatal resuscitation using eye tracking: a pilot study. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 103, F82–F84 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Wagner, M. et al. Video-based reflection on neonatal interventions during COVID-19 using eye-tracking glasses: an observational study. Arch. Dis. Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 107, 156–160 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wagner, M. et al. Visual attention during pediatric resuscitation with feedback devices: a randomized simulation study. Pediatr. Res. 91, 1762–1768 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Endsley, M. R. Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors J. Hum. Factors Erg. Soc. 37, 65–84 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Endsley, M. R. Design and evaluation for situation awareness enhancement. Proc. Hum. Factors Soc. 32nd Annu. Meet. 101–197 (1988).

  18. Endsley, M. R. & Hoffman, R. R. The sacagawea principle. IEEE Intell. Syst. 17, 80–85 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Hamid, H. S., Waternson P. E. Using goal directed task analysis to identify situation awareness requirements of advanced paramedics. In: Advances in Human Factors and Ergonomics in Healthcare (ed. Duffy ViG). First Edition. CRC Press (2011).

  20. Law, B. H. Y. & Schmölzer, G. M. Analysis of visual attention and team communications during neonatal endotracheal intubations using eye-tracking: an observational study. Resuscitation 153, 176–182 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. O’Donnell, C. P. F., Kamlin, C. O. F., Davis, P. G. & Morley, C. J. Endotracheal intubation attempts during neonatal resuscitation: success rates, duration, and adverse effects. Pediatrics 117, e16–e21 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Xue, F. S. et al. Hemodynamic responses to tracheal intubation with the GlideScope® videolaryngoscope: a comparison of oral and nasal routes. Acta Anaesthesiol. Taiwan. 46, 8–15 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tien, T. et al. Differences in gaze behaviour of expert and junior surgeons performing open inguinal hernia repair. Surg. Endosc. 29, 405–413 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. McNaughten, B. et al. Clinicians’ gaze behaviour in simulated paediatric emergencies. Arch. Dis. Child 103, 1146–1149 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kok, E. M. et al. Systematic viewing in radiology: seeing more, missing less? Adv. Heal Sci. Educ. 21, 189–205 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Hogan, M. P., Pace, D. E., Hapgood, J. & Boone, D. C. Use of human patient simulation and the situation awareness global assessment technique in practical trauma skills assessment. J. Trauma 61, 1047–1052 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge and thank all participants from the three centers for their contributions to this study.

Funding

All authors disclose any type of financial interest related to the manuscript. This study was supported financially by the State of Vorarlberg, Austria (IIb-11.04/35-1/2018). This study was supported by a research grant (Forschungsförderungspreis) from Netzwerk Kindersimulation e.V.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Michael Wagner, Burkhard Simma.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Academic Teaching Hospital, Landeskrankenhaus Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria

    Lisa Kessler, Heidi Aichner, Gerhard Aspalter & Burkhard Simma

  2. Pediatric Simulation Center, Academic Teaching Hospital, Landeskrankenhaus Feldkirch, Feldkirch, Austria

    Lisa Kessler, Heidi Aichner, Gerhard Aspalter, Lucas Kuster & Burkhard Simma

  3. Division of Neonatology, Pediatric Intensive Care and Neuropediatrics, Department of Pediatrics, Comprehensive Center for Pediatrics, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Lisa Kessler, Angelika Berger & Michael Wagner

  4. Centre for the Studies of Asphyxia and Resuscitation, Neonatal Research Unit, Royal Alexandra Hospital, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Lisa Kessler & Georg M. Schmölzer

  5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada

    Lisa Kessler & Georg M. Schmölzer

  6. Division of Sport Psychology, Department of Sport Science, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria

    Peter Gröpel

Authors
  1. Lisa Kessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Peter Gröpel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Heidi Aichner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gerhard Aspalter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Lucas Kuster
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Georg M. Schmölzer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Angelika Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Michael Wagner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Burkhard Simma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conception and design: B.S., M.W., G.S., and L.K. Data collection: G.A., H.A., M.W., G.S., and L.K. Analysis and interpretation of data: P.G. and L.K. The manuscript was drafted and reviewed by all authors and finally approved by all of them.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Kessler.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by each local ethics committee or data protection committee (Ethics Committee of the State of Vorarlberg, Protocol Number: EK-2-7/2018; Health Research Ethics Board – Health Panel in Edmonton, Study ID: Pro00096926; no ethical vote was necessary for this simulation-based study in Vienna).

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kessler, L., Gröpel, P., Aichner, H. et al. Eye-tracking during simulated endotracheal newborn intubation: a prospective, observational multi-center study. Pediatr Res 94, 443–449 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02561-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02561-x

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links