MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2961569594 · doi:10.33151/ajp.16.697

How are Ambulance Personnel Prepared and Supported to Withhold or Terminate Resuscitation and Manage Patient Death in the Field? A Scoping Review

2019· review· en· W2961569594 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Natalie Anderson, Julia Slark, Merryn Gott

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Journal of Paramedicine · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCardiac Arrest and Resuscitation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingResuscitationMedical emergencyMedicineDistancingCoping (psychology)StressorNursingMedical educationEmergency medicinePsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction Research shows that ambulance personnel can find it challenging to withhold or terminate resuscitation and manage patient death in the field. This scoping review provides a synthesis of published research that has addressed three main questions. Each relates to ambulance personnel enacting decisions to withhold or terminate resuscitation and manage patient death: How are they prepare; what supports and coping strategies are utilised; and what preparation and support needs have been identified? Methods Using Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework this review identifies what is known and what further research is needed in this area. Results Sixteen methodologically heterogenous papers were located. Half of the studies were conducted in the United States, with the remainder in Canada, Singapore, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom. Ambulance personnel receive little formal training and feel unprepared to manage situations where resuscitation is unsuccessful or unwarranted, particularly communicating with family, breaking bad news and managing death scenes. These aspects of termination of resuscitation are so challenging that distancing and avoidance are sometimes used as coping strategies, even when medical futility has been established. In addition to formal counselling for personal loss and stressors, ambulance personnel value downtime and informal peer debriefing, following difficult resuscitation decisions and patient deaths. Conclusion Ambulance personnel feel inadequately prepared to withhold or terminate resuscitation and manage patient death in the field. They want more opportunities to learn about death notification, communication with bereaved families and safe, sensitive management of death scenes. More research is needed to determine how best to prepare and support ambulance personnel for the challenges of resuscitation decision-making and patient death.

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)0.018
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.095

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0180.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.004
Bibliometrics0.0170.018
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.006
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0050.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.057
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.326 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations17
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian Journal of ParamedicineSame topicCardiac Arrest and ResuscitationFrench-language works237,207