Introduction of an Extracorporeal Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Eligibility Protocol for Paramedics in Atlantic Canada: A Pilot Knowledge Translation Project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction There is currently no protocol for the initiation of extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) for out of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) in Atlantic Canada. Advanced care paramedics (ACPs) perform advanced cardiac life support in the prehospital setting often completing the entire resuscitation on-scene. Implementation of ECPR will present a novel intervention that is only available at the receiving hospital. Our objective is to determine if an educational program can improve identification of ECPR candidates by paramedics. Establishing paramedic competence will ensure rapid transfer of eligible patients for a potentially life-saving intervention. Methods An educational program was delivered to paramedics including a short seminar and pocket card coupled with simulated OHCA cases. A before-and-after study design using a case-based survey was employed. Paramedics were scored on their ability to correctly identify patients suffering OHCA who met the inclusion criteria for our ECPR protocol. A Wilcoxon matched-pairs signed rank test was employed to compare paramedics' scores before and after the education delivery. A six-month follow-up is planned to assess retention. Qualitative data was also collected from paramedics during simulation to help identify practical issues, potential barriers, and to refine inclusion and exclusion criteria prior to the implementation of our protocol in the prehospital setting. Results The median score pre-education was 10 (IQR: 9-10.5) compared to 14 (IQR: 13-15) after education delivery. The median difference between groups was 5. The Wilcoxon matched-pairs test demonstrated a significant improvement in the paramedics' ability to correctly identify ECPR candidates after completing our educational program z = -2.67, p = 0.0039. Conclusion Paramedic training through a didactic session coupled with a pocket card and simulation appeared to be a feasible method of knowledge translation. Six-month follow-up data will help ensure knowledge retention is achieved.
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 | 0.020 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".