MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A pilot study using high-fidelity simulation to formally evaluate performance in the resuscitation of critically ill patients: The University of Ottawa Critical Care Medicine, High-Fidelity Simulation, and Crisis Resource Management I Study

2006· article· en· W2047526441 on OpenAlex

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

VenueCritical Care Medicine · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSimulation-Based Education in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersAmerican Psychological Association
KeywordsMedicineIntraclass correlationLikert scaleFidelityInter-rater reliabilityRating scaleGold standard (test)Construct validityNursingPsychometricsPatient satisfactionPsychologyClinical psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Resuscitation of critically ill patients requires medical knowledge, clinical skills, and nonmedical skills, or crisis resource management (CRM) skills. There is currently no gold standard for evaluation of CRM performance. The primary objective was to examine the use of high-fidelity simulation as a medium to evaluate CRM performance. Since no gold standard for measuring performance exists, the secondary objective was the validation of a measuring instrument for CRM performance-the Ottawa Crisis Resource Management Global Rating Scale (or Ottawa GRS). DESIGN: First- and third-year residents participated in two simulator scenarios, recreating emergencies seen in acute care settings. Three raters then evaluated resident performance using edited video recordings of simulator performance. SETTING: A Canadian university tertiary hospital. INTERVENTIONS: : The Ottawa GRS was used, which provides a 7-point Likert scale for performance in five categories of CRM and an overall performance score. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Construct validity was measured on the basis of content validity, response process, internal structure, and response to other variables. One variable measured in this study was the level of training. A t-test analysis of Ottawa GRS scores was conducted to examine response to the variable of level of training. Intraclass correlation coefficient scores were used to measure interrater reliability for both scenarios. Thirty-two first-year and 28 third-year residents participated in the study. Third-year residents produced higher mean scores for overall CRM performance than first-year residents (p < .0001) and in all individual categories within the Ottawa GRS (p = .0019 to p < .0001). This difference was noted for both scenarios and for each individual rater (p = .0061 to p < .0001). No statistically significant difference in resident scores was observed between scenarios. Intraclass correlation coefficient scores of .59 and .61 were obtained for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data obtained using the Ottawa GRS in measuring CRM performance during high-fidelity simulation scenarios support evidence of construct validity. Data also indicate the presence of acceptable interrater reliability when using the Ottawa GRS.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.248
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.334 · 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