Residual Psychomotor Skills of Orderlies After a Novel Chest Compression Training Intervention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: High-quality chest compressions are essential to favorable patient outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Without frequent training, however, skill in performing compressions declines considerably. The Timely Chest Compression Training (T-CCT) intervention was introduced in 2019 as a quality improvement initiative to address this problem. The long-term impact of the T-CCT is unknown. METHODS: A cohort study was conducted at a university-affiliated hospital in Quebec, Canada. Chest compression performance among orderlies was measured by using a subtractive scoring model and mannequins. The association of exposure to the T-CCT 10 months earlier with having an excellent chest compression performance (score ≥90 out of 100), after adjusting for potential confounders, was examined. RESULTS: A total of 412 orderlies participated in the study. More than half (n = 232, 56%) had been exposed to the T-CCT, and the rest (n = 180, 44%) had not. Nearly half (n = 106, 46%) of orderlies exposed to the T-CCT had an excellent performance, compared with less than one-third (n = 53, 30%) of nonexposed orderlies. In univariable analysis, previous exposure to the T-CCT was associated with 1.53 times greater risk of having an excellent performance (risk ratio, 1.53; 95% CI, 1.17-1.99). This effect remained after adjustment for potential confounders (risk ratio, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19-2.07). CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that the T-CCT has a lasting effect on the psychomotor skills of orderlies 10 months after initial exposure. Further research should investigate the impact of the intervention on patient outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".