Laryngeal Mask Airway Clinical Use and Training: A Survey of North American Neonatal Health Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to explore North American neonatal health care professionals' (HCPs) experience, confidence, skill, and training with the laryngeal mask airway (LMA). STUDY DESIGN: This was a cross-sectional survey. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 2,159 HCPs from Canada and the United States. Seventy nine percent had no clinical experience with the LMA, and less than 20% considered the LMA an alternative to endotracheal intubation (EI). The majority had received LMA training; however, 28% of registered nurses, 18% of respiratory therapists, 17% of physicians, and 12% of midwives had never inserted an LMA in a mannequin. Less than a quarter of respondents agreed that the current biennial Neonatal Resuscitation Program instruction paradigm is sufficient for LMA training. All groups reported low confidence and skill with LMA insertion, and compared with all other groups, the respiratory therapists had the highest reported confidence and skill. CONCLUSION: This survey study, which is the first of its kind to include midwives, demonstrates that neonatal HCPs lack experience, confidence, skill, and training with the LMA, rarely use the device, and in general, do not consider the LMA as an alternative to EI. These findings contribute to, and support the findings of previous smaller studies, and in conjunction with the diminishing opportunities for EI, highlight the need for programs to emphasize the importance of the LMA for neonatal airway management and prioritize regular LMA training, with focus that parallels the importance placed on the skills of EI and mask ventilation. KEY POINTS: · Lack of training for laryngeal mask airway use in neonatal resuscitation.. · Neonatal health care professionals rarely use the laryngeal mask airway as an alternate airway device.. · Neonatal health care professionals lack confidence and skill with the laryngeal mask airway..
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".