The Impact of Neonatal Simulations on Trainees’ Stress and Performance: A Parallel-Group Randomized Trial*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assess impact of neonatal simulation and simulated death on trainees' stress and performance. DESIGN: A parallel-group randomized trial (November 2011 to April 2012). SETTING: Sainte-Justine University Hospital, Montreal, Canada. SUBJECTS: Sixty-two pediatric trainees eligible, 59 consented, and 42 completed the study. INTERVENTIONS: Trainees performed two simulations where a term neonate was born pulseless. They were randomized to start with either survival (manikin responded to appropriate resuscitation) or death scenario (manikin remained pulseless despite resuscitation). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Performance was assessed using the Neonatal Resuscitation Program megacode score sheet by two reviewers. Subjective stress was assessed with a questionnaire. Three salivary cortisol (objective stress) values were compared: at baseline (T0: during lecture), presimulation (T1), and postsimulation (T2: after first scenario). Performance scores were similar in both groups in the first (83% vs 82%; p = 0.85) and second scenarios (82% vs 79 %; p = 0.87). Salivary cortisol levels at T0 (0.10 vs 0.10; p = 0.54), T1 (0.15 vs 0.11; p = 0.35), and T2 (0.23 vs 0.17; p = 0.23) did not differ between groups. Perceived stress level was six out of 10 in survival group versus seven out of 10 in death group (p = 0.19). Salivary cortisol increased significantly from T0 to T1 (p < 0.01). T2 cortisol levels were significantly higher than T1 (p< 0.001), yet this increase was not scenario dependent (p = 0.41) nor associated with performance on either scenario. Subscores for bag mask ventilation were lower than subscores for advanced resuscitation skills. CONCLUSIONS: Neonatal simulations cause significant anticipatory and participatory stress. Despite this, trainees' performance score in simulation was over 80%. Simulated death did not impact performance, magnitude of rise in salivary cortisol level, and perceived stress level. Trainees performed better at advanced resuscitation skills (which are rarely needed) compared with basic skills routinely performed in practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".