Non-technical skills of anaesthesia providers in Rwanda: an ethnography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Patient safety depends on excellent practice of anaesthetists' non-technical skills (ANTS). The ANTS framework has been validated in developed countries but there is no literature on the practice of ANTS in low-income countries. This study examines ANTS in this unexplored context. METHODS: This qualitative ethnographic study used observations of Rwandan anaesthesia providers and in-depth interviews with both North American and Rwandan anaesthesia providers to understand practice of ANTS in Rwanda. RESULTS: Communication is central to the practice of ANTS. Cultural factors in Rwanda, such as lack of assertiveness and discomfort taking leadership, and the strains of working in a resource-limited environment hinder the unfettered and focused communication needed for excellent anaesthesia practice. CONCLUSION: Despite the challenges, anaesthesia providers are able to coordinate activities when good communication is actively encouraged. Future teaching interventions should address leadership and communication skills through encouraging both role definition and speaking up for patient safety.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".