Trainee Perspectives on Manikin Death During Mock Codes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The acceptability of simulated death has been debated by experts, but there is scarce information regarding trainees' perspective. METHODS: Trainees in a large pediatric program were invited to perform mock codes, including pre and post questionnaires. Participants were exposed to 2 mock codes of neonates born pulseless. In the RESUSC scenario, the manikin responded to adequate resuscitation; in the DEATH scenario, the manikin remained pulseless. Mock codes were videotaped and evaluated by using the Neonatal Resuscitation Program score sheet. Debriefing was analyzed by using qualitative methodology. RESULTS: Fifty-nine of 62 trainees answered the questionnaire, and 42 performed a total of 84 mock codes. All trainees found mock codes beneficial and would appreciate being exposed to more. Most found them realistic and 78% agreed with the following statement: "During mock codes the manikin improves when adequate resuscitation steps are provided." The scenario or order of scenario did not affect performance (RESUSC versus DEATH). Only 1 trainee stopped resuscitation after 10 minutes of asystole; 31% had not ceased resuscitation efforts by 20 minutes. During debriefing and post questionnaire, trainees found the DEATH scenario more stressful than RESUSC. Trainees all answered the following question during debriefing: "How did this go for you?" Two themes were identified in their answers: (1) the manikin does not die; and (2) death equals inadequate resuscitation. CONCLUSIONS: The death of the manikin was stressful, but trainees thought this was acceptable and prepared them for their future. Trainees did not state that "death disclosures" were necessary before a simulated death.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".