Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of a neonatal resuscitation course on the theoretical knowledge and practical skills of birthing room personnel, and to evaluate the performance of skills at different times after the course. DESIGN: A program evaluation using a before and after cohort study. SETTING: Seven level II perinatal centres in the central-east region of Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: Seven hundred thirty-seven individuals (medical staff, nurses and respiratory technologists) who worked in birthing rooms. INTERVENTION: During an eight-month period, a course in neonatal resuscitation was presented at the perinatal centres. A cohort of 108 (15%) participants received testing before and after the course; the theoretical knowledge and practical performance of 62 of these participants were retested after six and 12 months. RESULTS: A significant improvement in both theoretical knowledge and practical skills was seen immediately after the course. Throughout the study, no difference was observed in the performance of nursing staff compared with that of medical staff, nor among the institutions involved. No significant difference in the decline of either theoretical knowledge or practical skills was seen among those who scored well in the original pre-test compared with those who scored poorly. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal resuscitation should be an integral part of continuing education for all personnel involved in obstetrical care because it improves both tested knowledge and performance. Practical skills appear to decline faster than theoretical knowledge. Inservice instruction is required, at least, every six months.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".