Using Pediatric Advanced Life Support in pediatric residency training: Does the curriculum need resuscitation?*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The Pediatric Advanced Life Support (PALS) course is used throughout North American pediatric residency programs to provide a core pediatric resuscitation curriculum. Despite this widespread use, its effectiveness has not been formally assessed in pediatric residents. This study aimed to evaluate the PALS curriculum's effectiveness in providing pediatric residents with knowledge, skill and confidence in pediatric resuscitation. DESIGN: Course evaluation. SETTING: Tertiary care pediatric hospital. SUBJECTS: Pediatric residents. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were followed prospectively for 1 yr following completion of an annual PALS course. Multiple choice and short answer questionnaires were used to evaluate residents' knowledge immediately before and after completion of the course and throughout the following year. Confidence in ten aspects of pediatric resuscitation was assessed. Scores were compared before and after the PALS course to evaluate acquisition of knowledge and confidence. Scores at 12 months were compared with the immediate post-PALS course scores to evaluate maintenance of knowledge and confidence over time. Technical skills were evaluated by staff anesthetists using a 3-point scale. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Knowledge questionnaire scores were significantly higher post-PALS compared with pre-PALS, but knowledge of the details of PALS algorithms decreased significantly over the following 12 months. Confidence ratings improved post-PALS on only two of ten measures and remained very low overall. Residents could complete the four core technical skills but required assistance or multiple attempts. CONCLUSIONS: PALS is successful in providing basic resuscitation knowledge to pediatric residents, but knowledge of critical algorithm details is not sustained. The course does not provide for the expected level of competency in relevant technical skills. Residents do not achieve the confidence to feel well prepared to provide comprehensive care to pediatric patients in cardiopulmonary arrest. These findings support the hypothesis that the PALS course alone is insufficient to provide pediatric residents with competency in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".