MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014312224 · doi:10.5480/1536-5026-32.2.128

Basic Life Support:<i>A Call for Reevaluation by Nurse Educators</i>

2011· article· en· W2014312224 on OpenAlex
Ryan E. Krahn

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueNursing Education Perspectives · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompetence (human resources)CertificationCurriculumBasic life supportNursingMedical educationPsychologyNurse educationNursing processMedicinePedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FORMAL EVALUATION OF THE STUDENT'S NURSING SKILLS IS FUNDAMENTAL TO THE UNDERGRADUATE NURSING CURRICULUM. An exception is basic life support (BLS) skills. The fact that these skills elude formal evaluation is alarming as research demonstrates that nursing students perform BLS skills poorly (Madden, 2006; Moule & Knight, 1997). This author urges that schools of nursing incorporate BLS skill evaluation into the undergraduate curriculum. Typically, schools of nursing require that students certify in BLS, but certification only validates the student's knowledge at one point in time. Following certification, a period of skill and knowledge deterioration takes place that Alspach (2005) attributes to the inability of the brain to form a procedural memory of the task. Students may complete the nursing program with the false notion that they are still competent in BLS. Formal skill evaluation is the accurate appraisal of a skill using techniques that have been tested for reliability and validity. Without formal evaluation of BLS, lack of competence may go unnoticed, and minimal learning may take place. As a nursing student, I had first-hand experience with the deterioration of skills and knowledge. Prior to joining the emergency response team (ERT), I had been through the certification process and considered myself an expert in BLS. However, following formal evaluation by the ERT team, my areas of deficiency were clearly apparent. I was able to remedy my errors and learn from my mistakes. I also worked as a peer mentor in my school's nursing laboratory for the last two years of the nursing program and observed students practicing other nursing skills, but never their BLS skills. As a student and mentor, I can attest that students will not practice a skill unless they know they cannot perform it correctly, or unless the skill is to be evaluated. Since the evaluation of BLS skills is not incorporated into the curriculum and appears to be inconsequential, students do not spend time fine-tuning these skills. But Niemi- Murola, Makinen, and Castren (2007) studied nursing and medical students' attitudes toward cardiopulmonary resuscitation and current practice guidelines and reported that nursing students would have liked to learn more BLS in their prelicensure education. Simulation and monitoring feedback devices are useful tools for maintaining BLS competency. The use of such devices may eliminate questions such as how hard do I push? and how fast should I go? Ackermann (2007) found that nursing students' BLS performance in a mock cardiac arrest scenario using high-fidelity simulation manikins was significantly better than the performance of a control group trained using standard American Heart Association training. …

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.581

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.324 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it