MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

51 Paediatric emergency clinicians are rarely exposed to non-airway critical procedures: a predict/PERN study

2017· article· en· W2770697135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Juan P. Garrahan, Mark D Lyttle, Ed Oakley, Stuart R. Dalziel, Lucia Nguyen, Arjun Rao, Santiago Mintegi, Franz E Babl

Bibliographic record

VenueEmergency Medicine Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAirway Management and Intubation Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePericardiocentesisThoracostomyAirwayThoracotomyEmergency departmentAirway obstructionEmergency medicinePneumothoraxSurgeryPericardial effusion

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Recent studies suggest that approximately one per thousand paediatric ED attendances may require some sort of critical procedure, with intubation being by far the most common. It is unknown how often critical non-airway procedures such as chest decompression, CPR, ED thoracotomy, defibrillation, pacing, and advanced vascular access techniques are performed by paediatric emergency clinicians. Objective To determine the recent performance or supervision, and confidence for various paediatric critical non-airway procedures by senior paediatric emergency clinicians. Design/methods Web based survey of senior paediatric emergency clinicians regarding performance, supervision, and confidence relating to critical non-airway procedures in children aged 0–18 years. The survey was distributed through Paediatric Emergency Research Networks (PERN) in the UK and Ireland, USA, Canada, Europe, South America, Australia and New Zealand. Results 1602 clinicians responded to the survey, with an overall response rate of 65%. 1508 (94%) respondents reported their most recent non-airway procedural experience. In the last 12 months, 979 (64%) had personally inserted an intraosseous line, 283 (19%) a central venous line, and 265 (18%) an arterial line. In the same time period, 962 (64%) had performed CPR, 190 (13%) had performed needle thoracostomy, 245 (16%) had performed tube thoracostomy, 380 (25%) had performed DC cardioversion or defibrillation, and 57 (4%) had performed transcutaneous pacing. 18 (1%) had performed pericardiocentesis, 19 (1%) a venous cutdown, and 21 (1%) ED thoracotomy. More than 70% of respondents had never supervised or performed pacing, pericardiocentesis, venous cutdown or ED thoracotomy. 332 (22%) and 348 (23%) had never performed or supervised insertion of a central venous line or arterial line respectively. Procedural confidence for intraosseous lines and CPR was high, while confidence increased with increasing patient age for central venous access and arterial lines. ED thoracotomy, pericardiocentesis and venous cutdown had the lowest frequency of respondents reporting confidence in performing the procedure. Conclusions More than half of the paediatric emergency clinicians surveyed had performed CPR and inserted an intraosseous needle within the last 12 months. Performance of other non-airway critical procedures was less common, and associated with less procedural confidence.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1000.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEmergency Medicine JournalSame topicAirway Management and Intubation TechniquesFrench-language works237,207