A N A SSESSMENT OF P ARAMEDIC P ERFORMANCE D URING I NVASIVE A IRWAY M ANAGEMENT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of paramedics, in a newly-initiated prehospital program, during invasive airway management. METHODS: An audit of paramedic call reports for a 12-month period from January to December 1997 was performed. Call reports that documented invasive airway management were retrieved and relevant data were extracted using a preformulated data-entry form. RESULTS: Paramedics attempted tracheal intubation in 453 patients and were successful in 408 (90.1%); 331 of the patients were in cardiopulmonary arrest with vital signs absent (VSA), 101 had medical emergencies, and 21 had trauma-related problems. In the VSA cohort, the tracheas of 96% of the patients were intubated successfully; 80.1% on the first attempt, 10.6% on the second, 4.5% on the third, and 0.9% after more than three attempts. In the medical cohort, the tracheas of 74.3% of the patients were intubated; 60.4% on the first attempt, 11.9% on the second, and 2.9% on the third. In the trauma cohort, 71.4% of the intubations were successful; 66.6% on the first attempt, 26.6% on the second, and 6.6% on the third. There was a difference (p < 0.001) in the incidence of successful intubations comparing the VSA cohort with the medical/trauma cohorts. There was also a difference (p < 0.001) between the success rate for nasal intubations (43 of 68, 63% of patients successfully intubated) and that for oral intubation (365 of 385, 94% of patients). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated a difference in the paramedics' success rates for tracheal intubation in VSA patients compared with those with preserved airway reflexes and a lower success rate for nasal vs oral tracheal intubation. These differences may be due to inadequate training, technical difficulties experienced in the field, or lack of sufficient exposure to medical/trauma scenarios to gain management experience. Future training to address these issues, both in the initial training phase and in the continuing education program, may be beneficial in improving performance.
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 | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".