Comparison of Adverse Events during Procedural Sedation between Specially Trained Pediatric Residents and Pediatric Emergency Physicians in Israel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".