Enhancing Pediatric Safety: Using Simulation to Assess Radiology Resident Preparedness for Anaphylaxis from Intravenous Contrast Media
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To prospectively develop and test a simulation model for assessing radiology resident preparedness for pediatric life-threatening events in the radiology environment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was institutional review board approved. Nineteen radiology residents (10 men, nine women; mean age, 28.5 years) participated in two simulated contrast material reaction scenarios: one with and one without resuscitation aids available. Each resident examined and managed two mannequins-simulating a 1-2-year-old patient and an 8-9-year-old patient-for type, sequence, dose, and administration route for any intervention, including administering medication, calling a code team, and providing oxygen. The time to order each intervention was documented. Resident responses (time to order intervention, appropriateness of intervention, and intervention route) were evaluated. The paired t test was used to compare the time to intervention between the resuscitation-aid-available and resuscitation-aid-not-available scenarios and between the scenario performed first and the scenario performed second. The McNemar test was performed to compare the percentage of appropriate interventions between the two resuscitation aid scenarios. RESULTS: The average time to call the code team was shorter when no resuscitation aids were available than when resuscitation aids were available (98 vs 149 seconds, P=.08). The average times to request oxygen and epinephrine were shorter when resuscitation aids were available (40 vs 89 seconds to request oxygen, P=.016; 121 vs 163 seconds to request epinephrine, P=.21). Appropriate medication dosing was not significantly different between the two scenarios. In only five of the 38 simulated scenarios was calling the code team the first intervention. The correct sequence of interventions (calling code team, providing oxygen, and then providing epinephrine) was performed by only one resident in one scenario. Only five residents recognized that they were encountering a contrast material reaction. CONCLUSION: Simulation training for radiology residents is valuable and suggests that resident preparedness for pediatric anaphylaxis from intravenous contrast media is insufficient. Clear step-by-step resuscitation aids are needed in the radiology environment.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".