Errors During Resuscitation: The Impact of Perceived Authority on Delivery of Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of perceived authority on pediatric resuscitation teams' response to an incorrect order given by a medical superior. METHODS: As part of a larger multicenter prospective interventional study, interprofessional pediatric resuscitation teams (n = 48) participated in a video-recorded simulated resuscitation scenario with an infant in unstable, refractory supraventricular tachycardia. A confederate actor playing a senior physician entered the scenario partway through and ordered the incorrect dose and delivery method of the antiarrhythmic, procainamide. Video recordings were analyzed with a modified Advocacy Inquiry Scale, assessing the teams' ability to challenge the incorrect order, and a novel confederate hierarchical demeanor rating. The association between Advocacy Inquiry score and hierarchical demeanor rating, and whether or not the confederate's incorrect order was followed were determined. RESULTS: Fifty percent (n = 24) of resuscitation teams followed the confederate's incorrect order. The teams' ability to challenge the incorrect order (P < 0.0001) and confederate hierarchical demeanor rating (P < 0.05) were significantly associated with whether or not the incorrect order was followed. Significant differences between rates of following the incorrect order at different study sites were observed (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The reluctance of resuscitation teams to appropriately challenge the incorrect order resulted in a high rate of inappropriate medication administration. The rate of teams following the incorrect order was significantly associated with poor challenging of the incorrect order and the hierarchical demeanor of the perceived authority figure. Institution-based factors may impact this rate of incorrect medication administration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".