Is current training in basic and advanced cardiac life support (BLS & ACLS) effective? A study of BLS & ACLS knowledge amongst healthcare professionals of North-Kerala
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Healthcare professionals are expected to have knowledge of current basic and advanced cardiac life support (BLS/ACLS) guidelines to revive unresponsive patients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted to evaluate the current practices and knowledge of BLS/ACLS principles among healthcare professionals of North-Kerala using pretested self-administered structured questionnaire. Answers were validated in accordance with American Heart Association's BLS/ACLS teaching manual and the results were analysed. RESULTS: =0.003) had significantly higher scores. One hundred and sixty three (35.3%) healthcare professionals knew the correct airway opening manoeuvres like head tilt, chin lift and jaw thrust. Only 54 (11.7%) respondents were aware that atropine is not used in ACLS for cardiac arrest resuscitation and 79 (17.1%) correctly opted ventricular fibrillation and pulseless ventricular tachycardia as shockable rhythms. The majority of healthcare professionals (356, 77.2%) suggested that BLS/ACLS be included in academic curriculum. CONCLUSION: Inadequate knowledge of BLS/ACLS principles amongst healthcare professionals, especially physicians, illuminate lacunae in existing training systems and merit urgent redressal.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".