A survey of factors associated with the successful recognition of agonal breathing and cardiac arrest by 9-1-1 call takers: design and methodology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac arrest victims most often collapse at home, where only a modest proportion receives life-saving bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation. As many as 40% of all sudden cardiac arrest victims have agonal or abnormal breathing in the first minutes following cardiac arrest. 9-1-1 call takers may wrongly interpret agonal breathing as a sign of life, and not initiate telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructions. Improving 9-1-1 call takers' ability to recognize agonal breathing as a sign of cardiac arrest could result in improved bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation and survival rates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest victims. METHODS/DESIGN: The overall goal of this study is to design and conduct a survey of 9-1-1 call takers in the province of Ontario to better understand the factors associated with the successful identification of cardiac arrest (including patients with agonal breathing) over the phone, and subsequent administration of cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructions to callers. This study will be conducted in three phases using the Theory of Planned Behaviour. In Phase One, we will conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with a purposeful selection of 9-1-1 call takers from Ontario, and identify common themes and belief categories. In Phase Two, we will use the qualitative interview results to design and pilot a quantitative survey. In Phase Three, a final version of the quantitative survey will be administered via an electronic medium to all registered call takers in the province of Ontario. We will perform qualitative thematic analysis (Phase One) and regression modelling (Phases Two and Three), to determine direct and indirect relationship of behavioural constructs with intentions to provide cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructions. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide valuable insight into the factors associated with the successful recognition of agonal breathing and cardiac arrest by 9-1-1 call takers. This will guide future interventional studies, which may include continuing education and protocol changes, in order to help increase the number of callers appropriately receiving cardiopulmonary resuscitation instructions, and save the lives of more cardiac arrest victims.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".