Cargando…

Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma

OBJECTIVES: We quantified the gaze fixation duration of resident and fellowship sonographers interpreting a prerecorded focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST). We hypothesized that all sonographers would fixate on each relevant anatomic relationship but that the duration of fixation wou...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bell, Colin R., Szulewski, Adam, Walker, Melanie, McKaigney, Conor, Ross, Graeme, Rang, Louise, Newbigging, Joseph, Kendall, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7821074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33521488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10439
_version_ 1783639342066958336
author Bell, Colin R.
Szulewski, Adam
Walker, Melanie
McKaigney, Conor
Ross, Graeme
Rang, Louise
Newbigging, Joseph
Kendall, John
author_facet Bell, Colin R.
Szulewski, Adam
Walker, Melanie
McKaigney, Conor
Ross, Graeme
Rang, Louise
Newbigging, Joseph
Kendall, John
author_sort Bell, Colin R.
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: We quantified the gaze fixation duration of resident and fellowship sonographers interpreting a prerecorded focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST). We hypothesized that all sonographers would fixate on each relevant anatomic relationship but that the duration of fixation would differ. METHODS: We conducted a cross‐sectional study collecting and analyzing the gaze fixations of a convenience sample of current resident and fellowship sonographers. All sonographers viewed a standardized FAST video, and their gaze fixations were recorded using a Tobii X3‐120 eye‐tracking bar. Gaze fixations over nine anatomic regions of interest (ROIs) were identified. These were assessed for normality and analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test at an alpha of 0.05 and Bonferroni correction p value of <0.0034. The chi‐square test and Pearson’s correlation were performed to assess statistical association. RESULTS: The gaze fixation recordings of 24 resident and eight fellowship sonographers were suitable for analysis. Fourteen of the 24 resident sonographers viewed all ROIs in the FAST, whereas all eight fellowship sonographers viewed each of the nine relevant ROIs. Five ROIs were identified over which at least one resident sonographer did not have a gaze fixation. No statistically significant difference was identified between groups. Resident sonographers gaze fixated over the left upper quadrant (LUQ) splenorenal interface for a median (interquartile range) of 10.64 (9.73–11.60) seconds. The fellowship group viewed the same ROI for 8.43 (6.64–8.95) seconds (p < 0.003). All participants viewed this ROI. No other ROIs had a statistical difference. CONCLUSION: Five ROIs were identified that were not visually interrogated by all resident sonographers. Only 14 of 24 resident sonographers visually interrogated every area in the FAST, whereas all fellowship sonographers interrogated every ROI. A statistically significant difference was found in gaze fixation duration between resident and fellowship sonographers in one ROI. Further study is required for gaze fixation assessment to become a tool for the interpretation component of point‐of‐care ultrasound.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7821074
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78210742021-01-29 Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma Bell, Colin R. Szulewski, Adam Walker, Melanie McKaigney, Conor Ross, Graeme Rang, Louise Newbigging, Joseph Kendall, John AEM Educ Train Original Contributions OBJECTIVES: We quantified the gaze fixation duration of resident and fellowship sonographers interpreting a prerecorded focused assessment with sonography in trauma (FAST). We hypothesized that all sonographers would fixate on each relevant anatomic relationship but that the duration of fixation would differ. METHODS: We conducted a cross‐sectional study collecting and analyzing the gaze fixations of a convenience sample of current resident and fellowship sonographers. All sonographers viewed a standardized FAST video, and their gaze fixations were recorded using a Tobii X3‐120 eye‐tracking bar. Gaze fixations over nine anatomic regions of interest (ROIs) were identified. These were assessed for normality and analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank sum test at an alpha of 0.05 and Bonferroni correction p value of <0.0034. The chi‐square test and Pearson’s correlation were performed to assess statistical association. RESULTS: The gaze fixation recordings of 24 resident and eight fellowship sonographers were suitable for analysis. Fourteen of the 24 resident sonographers viewed all ROIs in the FAST, whereas all eight fellowship sonographers viewed each of the nine relevant ROIs. Five ROIs were identified over which at least one resident sonographer did not have a gaze fixation. No statistically significant difference was identified between groups. Resident sonographers gaze fixated over the left upper quadrant (LUQ) splenorenal interface for a median (interquartile range) of 10.64 (9.73–11.60) seconds. The fellowship group viewed the same ROI for 8.43 (6.64–8.95) seconds (p < 0.003). All participants viewed this ROI. No other ROIs had a statistical difference. CONCLUSION: Five ROIs were identified that were not visually interrogated by all resident sonographers. Only 14 of 24 resident sonographers visually interrogated every area in the FAST, whereas all fellowship sonographers interrogated every ROI. A statistically significant difference was found in gaze fixation duration between resident and fellowship sonographers in one ROI. Further study is required for gaze fixation assessment to become a tool for the interpretation component of point‐of‐care ultrasound. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-02-28 /pmc/articles/PMC7821074/ /pubmed/33521488 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10439 Text en © 2020 The Authors. AEM Education and Training published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Contributions
Bell, Colin R.
Szulewski, Adam
Walker, Melanie
McKaigney, Conor
Ross, Graeme
Rang, Louise
Newbigging, Joseph
Kendall, John
Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma
title Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma
title_full Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma
title_fullStr Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma
title_full_unstemmed Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma
title_short Differences in Gaze Fixation Location and Duration Between Resident and Fellowship Sonographers Interpreting a Focused Assessment With Sonography in Trauma
title_sort differences in gaze fixation location and duration between resident and fellowship sonographers interpreting a focused assessment with sonography in trauma
topic Original Contributions
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7821074/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33521488
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/aet2.10439
work_keys_str_mv AT bellcolinr differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma
AT szulewskiadam differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma
AT walkermelanie differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma
AT mckaigneyconor differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma
AT rossgraeme differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma
AT ranglouise differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma
AT newbiggingjoseph differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma
AT kendalljohn differencesingazefixationlocationanddurationbetweenresidentandfellowshipsonographersinterpretingafocusedassessmentwithsonographyintrauma