MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057755121 · doi:10.1080/10903120090941443

A N A SSESSMENT OF P ARAMEDIC P ERFORMANCE D URING I NVASIVE A IRWAY M ANAGEMENT

2000· article· en· W2057755121 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.

Bibliographic record

VenuePrehospital Emergency Care · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntubationCohortAirway managementAirwayIncidence (geometry)AnesthesiaMajor traumaEmergency medicineTracheal intubationSignificant differenceRetrospective cohort studySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.884
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.000

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.259 · 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