Paediatric intubation in Scottish emergency departments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intubation of children in the emergency department setting is uncommon. This prospective observational study examines the practice of paediatric intubation in Scottish adult/paediatric urban emergency departments. METHODS: A prospective observational study of every intubation attempt was performed in seven urban Scottish emergency departments in 1999 and 2000. Children were defined as those patients who were less than 13 years of age on the day of presentation. Prehospital intubations were only included if they were performed by a mobile medical team doctor from one of the seven hospitals. RESULTS: A total of 1713 patients were identified, 44 of whom (2.6%) were children. The median age was 4 years (range 0-12 years), and 57% (25 of 44) of intubations were performed on patients with traumatic injuries. Emergency physicians attempted intubation in 27% (12 of 44) of cases, anaesthetists in 73% (32 of 44); 18% (eight of 44) of patients were intubated in nontraumatic cardiac arrest, 68% (30 of 44) underwent rapid sequence intubation (RSI), one (2%) had inhalational anaesthesia and 13 (30%) were intubated without drugs. Eighty per cent (35 of 44) of patients were intubated at the first attempt; eight patients required two attempts, and one required three attempts. Three children were intubated prehospital by mobile medical teams. Emergency physicians intubated more patients with 'physiological compromise' (100% vs 91%). CONCLUSIONS: Paediatric intubation in the emergency department is uncommon. Collaboration and appropriate training for doctors in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and paediatrics is essential.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".