MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620892450

Retention of ventilation skills by emergency nurses three months after training: SMART bag compared with standard bag

2004· article· en· W2620892450 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mélissa De Regge, Catherine Vogels, Paul Calle, Koenraad G. Monsieurs

Bibliographic record

VenueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVentilation (architecture)InsufflationEmergency departmentAnesthesiaTidal volumeEmergency medicineNursingInternal medicineRespiratory system
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Retention of ventilation skills by emergency nurses three and six months after training: Smart Bag compared with standard bag. De Regge Melissa, Vogels C, Calle PA, Monsieurs KG. Ghent University Hospital, Belgium and Cliniques Universitaires St. Luc, Brussels, Belgium. Background: The ERC 2000 Guidelines recommend tidal volumes (Vt) of only 400-600 ml and inspiratory times (Ti) between one and two seconds to reduce gastric insufflation (GI) with Bag-Valve-Mask (BVM) devices (1). Studies have shown that the SMART BAG® (SB, O-Two Medical Technologies Inc. Canada) reduces GI by the use of a pressure/flow responsive valve (2, 3). Purpose: 1. To assess ventilation skills of emergency department (ED) nurses with a Standard BVM (STBVM) and the SB before and after CPR training focusing on limiting Vt and prolonging Ti. We hypothesized that after 3 and 6 months the SB would facilitate the maintenance of good quality ventilation. 2. To identify ventilation parameters associated with GI. Materials and methods We utilized a CPR training manikin (Simulaids, USA) equipped with an oesophagus and a PEEP valve set at 20 cm H20 simulating the lower oesophageal sphincter pressure. Ti, Vt and peak pressure (Pp)were measured (CPRview®, Michigan Instruments, USA). GI was measured with a volume meter (Medishield, UK). Prior to training, 39 ED nurses performed CPR for 2 minutes, in pairs, using a STBVM (Laerdal, Norway) to assess their baseline skills. Immediately following training they were retested using an O-Two STBVM and a SB. Twenty nurses were retested after 3 months, 19 after 6 months. Efficient ventilation was defined as a mean Vt > 400 ml and GI < 50 ml/min. Mean values over 2 minutes are reported. Mann-Whitney U test and Fisher’s exact tests were used for analysis. Results: Before training: only 5/39 (13%) of nurses ventilated efficiently. 21/39 (54%) had GI, 15/39 (38%) had Vt < 400 ml. Immediately after training: STBVM: 20/39 (51%) of nurses ventilated efficiently. 6/39 (15%) had GI, 13/39 (33%) had Vt < 400 ml. SB: 16/37 (2 missing data) (43%) of nurses ventilated efficiently, none had GI. After 3 and 6 months: The number of nurses ventilating efficiently did not change significantly. When compared with base line (2/19), more nurses ventilated efficiently with SB (10/19) at 6 months but not with STBVM (5/19). Ventilation parameters: for all STBVM cases with Vt > 400 ml, cases without GI had longer Ti and lower Pp than cases with GI (Ti 1.29 s versus 1.00 s, p=0.003, Pp 17 cm H20 versus 8 cm H20, p<0.0001). SB cases with Vt > 400 ml had even longer Ti (1.47 s) and lower Pp (7.5 cm H20) than STBVM cases. Of all efficient ventilations with a STBVM, 11/37 (30%) had Vt > 600 ml Conclusions: 1. Skills assessment: a. Ventilation techniques at base line were poor with GI and hypoventilation as the major problems, justifying training. b. After training, only 47% of nurses ventilated efficiently, mainly because of hypoventilation. c. In contrast with STBVM, SB resulted in better skills after 6 months compared with base line. 2. Ventilation parameters: a. Short Ti and high Pp are associated with GI in the STBVM. b. The SB achieved good volumes at the longest Ti and lowest Pp. There was never GI with the SB. c. Long Ti and reduced Pp prevented GI with STBVM even at Vt > 600 ml. d. Training should focus on prolonging Ti and not only on limiting Vt. References: 1. de Latorre F, Nolan J, Robertson C, et al. European Resuscitation Council Guidelines 2000 for Adult Advanced Life Support. Resuscitation 2001;48:211–21. 2. Wagner-Berger HG, Wenzel V, Voelckel WG, et al. A pilot study to evaluate the SMART BAG: a new pressure-responsive, gas-flow limiting bag-valve-mask device. Anesth Analg 2003;97(6):1686-9. 3. Wagner-Berger HG, Wenzel V, Stallinger A, et al. Decreasing peak flow rate with a new bag-valve-mask device: effects on respiratory mechanics, and gas distribution in a bench model of an unprotected airway. Resuscitation 2003;57(2):193-9.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGhent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University)Same topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207