Performance of Resuscitation Skills by Paramedic Personnel in Chemical Protective Suits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Determine whether wearing a chemical protective suit increases time to successful completion of four resuscitation skills. METHODS: This prospective experimental study examined the ability of civilian paramedic personnel to complete four resuscitative skills (electrical defibrillation, administration of epinephrine subcutaneously, intravenous cannulation, and tracheal intubation) carried out using standard methods on mannequins under two test conditions (wearing the protective suit and not wearing the suit). Primary outcome was time to successful completion of each skill. RESULTS: Sixteen paramedics were enrolled and completed each skill under two test conditions. Paramedics took longer to complete administration of epinephrine (87 vs. 60 seconds; p < 0.01) and intravenous cannulation (220 vs. 158 seconds; p < 0.01) tasks when wearing a protective suit. Wearing the suit did not impair electrical defibrillation (57 vs. 46 seconds) or tracheal intubation (79 vs 69 seconds). CONCLUSIONS: Chemical protective suit use increased time to successful completion of resuscitation skills where fine motor skills are required, namely administration of epinephrine subcutaneously and intravenous cannulation, but did not increase time to successful completion of resuscitation skills requiring gross motor skills, namely electrical defibrillation and tracheal intubation.
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) | 0.000 | 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".