CPR Skill Retention of First Aid Attendants within the Workplace
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Immediate resuscitation is necessary in order to achieve conscious survival for persons who have lost airways or pulses. However, current literature suggests that even in medically-trained personnel, CPR skills are forgotten shortly after certification. HYPOTHESIS/PROBLEM: The purpose of this study was to determine the CPR skill and knowledge decay in those who are paid to respond to emergency situations within the workplace. METHODS: Using an unconscious victim scenario, the sequence and accuracy of CPR events were observed and recorded in 244 participants paid to act as first responders in large industrial or service industry settings. RESULTS: A significant negative correlation was observed between days since training and a pre-CPR safety check variable, periodic checks for breathing and positioning. Many of the knowledge-related assessment skills (e.g., scene safety, emergency medical system (EMS) activation) appeared to deteriorate with time, although they could be contaminated by the repetition of training in those who had recertified one or more times. Skill-based components such as landmarking for chest compressions and controlling the airway declined in a more predictable fashion. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that repetition may be more important than days since last trained for skill and knowledge retention, and methods of "refreshing" skills should be examined. While skills deteriorate rapidly, changing frequency of certification is not necessarily the best way to increase retention of skill and knowledge.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".