A pilot study on physiological indicators of expertise in pre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) providers during endotracheal intubation

Gabriel Gazetta , Yaoyu Fu , Kaori Tanaka , Brian M. Clemency , Anirban Dutta , Matthew Hackett , Jack Norfleet , Rahul , Suvranu De , Steven Schwaitzberg , Lora Cavuoto
{"title":"A pilot study on physiological indicators of expertise in pre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) providers during endotracheal intubation","authors":"Gabriel Gazetta ,&nbsp;Yaoyu Fu ,&nbsp;Kaori Tanaka ,&nbsp;Brian M. Clemency ,&nbsp;Anirban Dutta ,&nbsp;Matthew Hackett ,&nbsp;Jack Norfleet ,&nbsp;Rahul ,&nbsp;Suvranu De ,&nbsp;Steven Schwaitzberg ,&nbsp;Lora Cavuoto","doi":"10.1016/j.jemrpt.2025.100169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Prehospital intubation is a high risk, low frequency skill. Manikin intubations, the most common means of evaluating providers’ competency, may be insufficient to predict procedural success.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The objective of this pilot study was to explore whether physiological measures, including gaze behavior, pupil response, and cortical activation, differed between groups of pre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) providers during simulated endotracheal intubation.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Fifteen certified paramedics (expert clinicians) and fifteen Advanced Emergency Medical Technicians (intermediate clinicians) participated in this pilot study. Each participant performed three intubations on a standard airway manikin. During the intubations, pupillometry and gaze data were collected using eye tracking glasses and brain activation using functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Groups were compared based on the eye tracking and neuroimaging metrics.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Twenty-seven out of 30 participants successfully intubated the manikin across all repetitions, and expert clinicians finished the task on average 11.6s faster than intermediate clinicians. Experts spent less task time in gaze fixation (39.8 % vs. 55.2 %, <em>p</em> = 0.03). Peaks in pupil diameter during the task most often occurred during the sub-task of inserting the tube in the trachea (76% of the time). Neuroimaging results revealed significant group-level differences in the left supramarginal gyrus.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>This study explored physiological responses during simulated intubation by pre-hospital emergency medicine providers. While some group-level differences were observed in gaze behavior and brain activation, these findings were not sufficient to differentiate expertise. Further research is needed to better understand how physiological responses may reflect task demands in clinical settings.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73546,"journal":{"name":"JEM reports","volume":"4 2","pages":"Article 100169"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JEM reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773232025000331","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Prehospital intubation is a high risk, low frequency skill. Manikin intubations, the most common means of evaluating providers’ competency, may be insufficient to predict procedural success.

Objective

The objective of this pilot study was to explore whether physiological measures, including gaze behavior, pupil response, and cortical activation, differed between groups of pre-hospital emergency medical services (EMS) providers during simulated endotracheal intubation.

Methods

Fifteen certified paramedics (expert clinicians) and fifteen Advanced Emergency Medical Technicians (intermediate clinicians) participated in this pilot study. Each participant performed three intubations on a standard airway manikin. During the intubations, pupillometry and gaze data were collected using eye tracking glasses and brain activation using functional near infrared spectroscopy (fNIRS). Groups were compared based on the eye tracking and neuroimaging metrics.

Results

Twenty-seven out of 30 participants successfully intubated the manikin across all repetitions, and expert clinicians finished the task on average 11.6s faster than intermediate clinicians. Experts spent less task time in gaze fixation (39.8 % vs. 55.2 %, p = 0.03). Peaks in pupil diameter during the task most often occurred during the sub-task of inserting the tube in the trachea (76% of the time). Neuroimaging results revealed significant group-level differences in the left supramarginal gyrus.

Conclusion

This study explored physiological responses during simulated intubation by pre-hospital emergency medicine providers. While some group-level differences were observed in gaze behavior and brain activation, these findings were not sufficient to differentiate expertise. Further research is needed to better understand how physiological responses may reflect task demands in clinical settings.
一项关于院前紧急医疗服务(EMS)提供者在气管插管期间专业知识生理指标的试点研究
院前插管是一项高风险、低频率的技能。人体插管是评估提供者能力的最常用手段,但可能不足以预测手术的成功。本初步研究的目的是探讨院前急救医疗服务(EMS)提供者在模拟气管插管期间的凝视行为、瞳孔反应和皮层激活等生理指标是否存在差异。方法15名持证护理人员(专家型临床医生)和15名高级急救技术人员(中级临床医生)参与了本研究。每位参与者在标准气道模型上进行三次插管。在插管期间,使用眼动追踪眼镜收集瞳孔测量和凝视数据,并使用功能性近红外光谱(fNIRS)收集脑激活数据。根据眼动追踪和神经成像指标对各组进行比较。结果30名参与者中有27名成功插管,专家临床医生比中级临床医生平均快11.6s完成任务。专家注视的任务时间较少(39.8%比55.2%,p = 0.03)。任务中瞳孔直径的峰值最常出现在将管子插入气管的子任务中(76%的时间)。神经影像学结果显示左边缘上回组间差异显著。结论本研究探讨院前急救医学人员在模拟插管过程中的生理反应。虽然在凝视行为和大脑激活方面观察到一些群体水平的差异,但这些发现不足以区分专业知识。需要进一步的研究来更好地理解生理反应如何反映临床环境中的任务需求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JEM reports
JEM reports Emergency Medicine
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
54 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信