Comparison of Adverse Events during Procedural Sedation between Specially Trained Pediatric Residents and Pediatric Emergency Physicians in Israel
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: The aim was to compare the rate of procedural sedation-related adverse events of pediatric residents with specific training in "patient safety during sedation" and pediatric emergency physicians (PEPs) who completed the same course or were teaching faculty for it. METHODS: This prospective single-blinded, nonrandomized study was conducted in two university-affiliated pediatric emergency departments (PEDs) in Israel. Pediatric residents who were authorized to perform unsupervised sedations had previously completed a course in patient safety during sedation. Unsupervised sedations by residents were defined as sedations where the entire procedure was performed independently. Study subjects had autonomy in choosing medications for sedation. Adverse events were defined as transient hypoxia (oxygen saturation < or = 90%) or apnea. Adverse outcomes were situations where intubation or hospitalization directly related to sedation complications would occur. Sedations over 12 consecutive months were recorded, and rates of adverse events in each group were compared. RESULTS: A total of 984 eligible sedations were recorded, 635 by unsupervised residents and 349 by PEPs. A total of 512 (80.6%) sedations were performed by residents when attending physicians were not in the ED. The total adverse event rate was 24/984 (2.44%). When the two groups used a similar type drugs, residents had 8/635 (1.26%) events, compared to 11/328 (3.35%) by PEPs. There was no statistically significant difference in the rates of hypoxia or apnea between the two groups (p = 0.29 and p = 0.18, respectively). Adverse outcomes did not occur. CONCLUSIONS: Unsupervised pediatric residents with training in patient safety during sedation performed procedural sedations with a rate of adverse events similar to that of PEPs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».