MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2043531488 · doi:10.1053/adnc.2002.36831

A PROSPECTIVE CLINICAL AUDIT OF NEONATAL RESUSCITATION PRACTICES IN CANADA

2002· article· en· W2043531488 on OpenAlex
Ann M. Mitchell, Patricia Niday, Jill Boulton, G. W. Chance, Corinne Dulberg

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Neonatal Care · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeonatal Respiratory Health Research
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineResuscitationNeonatal resuscitationEmergency medicineCardiopulmonary resuscitationAuditIntubationProspective cohort studyCertificationMedical emergencyIntensive care medicineAnesthesiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: This is a prospective audit to determine the frequency of resuscitation interventions in the clinical setting and to compare self-reports of clinical performance with the existing Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) and Canadian National Guidelines for Neonatal Resuscitation. SUBJECTS: Fifty-six level I, II, and III hospitals in Canada participated. Any infant requiring resuscitation, as defined by the need for at least positive pressure ventilation (PPV), was eligible for inclusion (n = 783 resuscitations). DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective self-report audit was chosen and data were collected over a 6-month period in 1998. The audit focused on the use of PPV, intubation, chest compressions, free-flow oxygen, or medications during the resuscitation. The infant's temperature at the end of resuscitation was also noted. The data were analyzed with descriptive statistics. The composition of the resuscitation team and their NRP certification status were recorded. PRINCIPAL RESULTS: The need for resuscitation was not anticipated in 76% of the cases (596 of 783). Errors in the sequencing of care, such as delays in initiating PPV, provision of chest compressions before or without establishing an airway and ventilatory support, and administering naloxone before PPV, were reported. Resuscitations attended by a team of NRP certified providers had improved sequencing when compared with those in which only some individual providers were certified. Chest compressions were provided in 8% of the cases (65 of 783). Medications were used in 14% (113/783) of all cases. Providers in level I hospitals performed chest compressions more frequently than those in level II and III settings. At the end of the resuscitation, 27% of the infants were hypothermic (142 of 520), and 25% were hyperthermic (128 of 520). Overall, 52% were out of the normal neutral range. CONCLUSIONS: Clear differences between the NRP guidelines and actual clinical practice were shown. A high rate of unanticipated resuscitations, delivery room medications, and chest compressions was described. Postresuscitation hypothermia or hyperthermia were common. Improved sequencing was noted when the entire resuscitation team was NRP certified. Certification in NRP does not assure competency, nor does it ensure compliance with established standards of care.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.795

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.368 · 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