MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3115102251 · doi:10.1016/j.resplu.2020.100059

Use of briefing and debriefing in neonatal resuscitation, a scoping review

2020· review· en· W3115102251 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Joe Fawke, Christopher D Stave, Nicole K. Yamada

Bibliographic record

VenueResuscitation Plus · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care Units
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of AucklandUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of MichiganUniversidade Federal de São PauloUniversity of OklahomaUniversità degli Studi di PadovaUniversity of QueenslandUniversity of Oxford
KeywordsDebriefingSystematic reviewNeonatal resuscitationMedicinePsychological interventionResuscitationBest practiceMEDLINECochrane LibraryNursingMedical emergencyMedical educationMeta-analysisEmergency medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: To review the literature on briefing and debriefing in neonatal resuscitation using International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) methodology to see if a formal systematic review is justified. METHODS: This scoping review was undertaken by an ILCOR Newborn Life Support scoping review team and guided by the ILCOR methodological framework and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were peer-reviewed, compared briefing/debriefing of healthcare professionals who had completed a neonatal resuscitation or simulated resuscitation and reported outcomes for infants, families or staff. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases were searched. RESULTS: This review included four studies that reported on three briefing/debriefing interventions: video debriefing, the use of checklists with a briefing/debriefing component and rapid cycle deliberate practice. Video debriefing was associated with improvements in the process of care and adherence to resuscitation guidelines. Use of checklists was associated with improvements in short term clinical outcomes and a reduction in communication problems. Rapid cycle deliberate practice may lead to short but not sustained improvements in algorithm compliance and timely completion of resuscitation steps. CONCLUSION: This scoping review did not identify sufficient new evidence to justify conducting new systematic reviews or review of current resuscitation guidelines. Improvements in the process of care, short term clinical outcomes and reduction in communication problems were associated with briefing/debriefing supported by video, checklists or rapid, cycle deliberate practice. It highlights knowledge gaps, including the need to consider briefing/debriefing separately from other interventions, the effect of briefing/debriefing on short- and long-term clinical outcomes and the effect of rapid cycle deliberate practice on resuscitation training.

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)0.079
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.259
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.418

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0790.259
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.010
Bibliometrics0.0240.019
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.291
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.178 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations39
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResuscitation PlusSame topicFamily and Patient Care in Intensive Care UnitsFrench-language works237,207