MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049414286 · doi:10.1080/15031430410025515

Advanced Versus Basic Life Support in the Pre‐Hospital Setting – The Controversy between the ‘Scoop and Run’ and the ‘Stay and Play’ Approach to the Care of the Injured Patient

2004· article· en· W2049414286 on OpenAlexaff
Moïshe Liberman, Charles C. Branas, David S. Mulder, André Lavoie, John S. Sampalis

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Disaster Medicine · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsHôpital du Sacré-Cœur de MontréalMcGill UniversityHôpital de l'Enfant-JésusMontreal General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSCOOPMedicineComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pre‐hospital care for trauma patients is provided by emergency medical personnel using either basic life support (BLS) or advanced life support (ALS) techniques. BLS for the seriously injured trauma patient most notably involves ‘scoop and run’ in which medical interventions are performed while en route to an appropriate hospital. These interventions are non‐invasive and include wound dressing, immobilization, fracture splinting, oxygen administration and non‐invasive cardiopulmonary resuscitation. ALS encompasses all of the previously mentioned BLS techniques in addition to minimally invasive procedures such as endotracheal intubation, intravenous access for fluid replacement and administration of medications. System protocols often dictate that ALS providers ‘stay and play’ at the scene of a serious trauma in order to carry out these more advanced procedures. The rationale for the use of on‐site ALS in trauma is that these interventions will reduce the rate of physiological and haemodynamic deterioration, thus stabilizing the patient prior to arrival at the hospital. It is expected that this will subsequently result in increased chances of survival. The paradox is that on‐site ALS increases the amount of time that is spent on the scene, and hence increases the delay to definitive in‐hospital care. The controversy regarding the pre‐hospital care of trauma patients between ALS and BLS is ongoing. Due to this unresolved controversy, as well as historical, cultural and political factors, significant variations exist in the pre‐hospital care available to trauma patients. Pre‐hospital care throughout the world is therefore inconsistent and is provided in different ways by different crews with different equipment, protocols and training. This review will focus on the controversies which occur in the urban setting with regard to the overall approach to pre‐hospital care as well as for specific pre‐hospital interventions. The discussion will consist of an evidence‐based approach to the topic of pre‐hospital care and topics discussed will be based on past and current literature.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations24
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Disaster MedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207