Influence of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Coaching and Provider Role on Perception of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality During Simulated Pediatric Cardiac Arrest*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We aimed to describe the impact of a cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach on healthcare provider perception of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality during simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. DESIGN: Prospective, observational study. SETTING: We conducted secondary analysis of data collected from a multicenter, randomized trial of providers who participated in a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. SUBJECTS: Two-hundred pediatric acute care providers. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were randomized to having a cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach versus no cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation coaches provided feedback on cardiopulmonary resuscitation performance and helped to coordinate key tasks. All teams used cardiopulmonary resuscitation feedback technology. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality was collected by the defibrillator, and perceived cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality was collected by surveying participants after the scenario. We calculated the difference between perceived and measured quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and defined accurate perception as no more than 10% deviation from measured quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Teams with a cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach were more likely to accurately estimate chest compressions depth in comparison to teams without a cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach (odds ratio, 2.97; 95% CI, 1.61-5.46; p < 0.001). There was no significant difference detected in accurate perception of chest compressions rate between groups (odds ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.77-2.32; p = 0.32). Among teams with a cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach, the cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach had the best chest compressions depth perception (80%) compared with the rest of the team (team leader 40%, airway 55%, cardiopulmonary resuscitation provider 30%) (p = 0.003). No differences were found in perception of chest compressions rate between roles (p = 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers improved their perception of cardiopulmonary resuscitation depth with a cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach present. The cardiopulmonary resuscitation coach had the best perception of chest compressions depth.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".