Resuscitation team training in Rwanda: A mixed method study exploring the combination of the VAST course with Advanced Cardiac Life Support training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The influence of non-technical skills training on resuscitation performance in low-resource settings is unknown. This study investigates combining the Vital Anaesthesia Simulation Training Course with Advanced Cardiac Life Support training on resuscitation performance in Rwanda. Participants in this mixed method study are members of resuscitation teams in three district hospitals in Rwanda. The intervention was participation in a 2-day Advanced Cardiac Life Support course followed by the 3-day Vital Anaesthesia Simulation Training Course. Quantitative primary endpoints were time to initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation, time to epinephrine administration, and time to defibrillation. Qualitative data on workplace implementation were gathered during focus groups held 3-months post-intervention. Forty-seven participants were recruited. Quantitative data showed a statistically significant decrease in time to cardiopulmonary resuscitation, epinephrine administration, and defibrillation from pre- to post-Advanced Cardiac Life Support, with times of [43.3 (49.7) seconds] versus [16.5 (20) sec], p = <0.001; [137.3 (108.9) sec] versus [51.3 (37.9)], p = <0.001; and [218.5 (105.8) sec] versus [110.8 (87.1) sec], p = <0.001; respectively. These improvements were maintained following the Vital Anaesthesia Simulation Training Course, and at 3-month retention testing. Qualitative analysis highlighted five key themes: ability to initiate cardiopulmonary resuscitation; team coordination for task allocation; empowerment; desire for training and mentorship; and advocacy for system improvement. A modified 2-day Advanced Cardiac Life Support course improved resuscitation time indicators with retention 3-months later. Combining the Vital Anaesthesia Simulation Training Course and Advanced Cardiac Life Support led to better team coordination, empowerment to act, and advocacy for system improvement. This pairing of courses has promise for improving Advanced Cardiac Life Support skills amongst healthcare workers in low-resource settings. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05278884.
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 | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".