Efficacy of Computer-Based Simulation as a Modality for Learning Pediatric Disaster Triage for Pediatric Emergency Nurses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY STATEMENT: Pediatric disaster triage (PDT) is challenging for healthcare personnel. Mistriage can lead to poor resource utilization. In contrast to live simulation, screen-based simulation is more reproducible and less costly. We hypothesized that the screen-based simulation "60 Seconds to Survival" (60S) to learning PDT will be associated with improved triage accuracy for pediatric emergency nursing personnel.During this prospective observational study, 138 nurse participants at 2 tertiary care emergency departments were required to play 60S at least 5 times over 13 weeks. Efficacy was assessed by measuring the learners' triage accuracy, mistriage, and simulated patient outcomes using JumpStart.Triage accuracy improved from a median of 61.1 [interquartile range (IQR) = 48.5-72.0] to 91.7 (IQR = 60.4-95.8, P < 0.0001), whereas mistriage decreased from 38.9 (IQR = 28.0-51.5) to 8.3 (IQR = 4.2-39.6, P < 0.0001), demonstrating a significant improvement in accuracy and decrease in mistriage. Screen-based simulation 60S is an effective modality for learning PDT by pediatric emergency nurses.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".