Tracheal Intubation by Attending Physicians in a U.S. Registry, 2016–2020: Analysis by PICU Participation in a Skills Maintenance Program and Fellowship Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Tracheal intubation (TI) is a critical skill for PICU attending physicians to maintain. We hypothesize that attendings perform fewer TIs and have lower success rate in PICU programs with a Pediatric Critical Care Medicine (PCCM) fellowship. DESIGN: Retrospective study using the National Emergency Airway Registry for Children (NEAR4KIDS) from July 2016 to June 2020. Exposures were presence of PCCM fellowship and attending TI skill maintenance program (SMP). The primary outcome was attending's first attempt success and the secondary outcome was adverse airway outcome in the first attempt. SETTING: Thirty-three PICUs in North America. PATIENTS: Children receiving TI. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 23 of 33 PICUs had a PCCM fellowship with three of 23 having an attending TI SMP. Attendings performed TI in 24.1% (2,728/11,323): 13.9% (13.8 TI/yr per PICU) in PICUs with a fellowship vs. 66.0% (36.6 TI/yr per PICU) without a fellowship (p < 0.001). Attending first attempt success in PICUs with vs. without fellowships was 70.5% vs. 81.3% (difference, 10.8% [95% CI, 7.6-14.0%]; p < 0.0001). After controlling for confounders, attendings in a PICU with a fellowship had lower odds for first attempt success (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.65 [95% CI, 0.47-0.90]). We failed to find an association between attending first attempt success and PICU program type, with vs. without a TI SMP (74.0% vs. 69.5%; p = 0.146). The adverse airway outcome rate of the TI with attending's first attempt was lower in PICU programs with vs. without a TI SMP (32.8% vs. 40.3%; p = 0.020). However, after adjusting for confounders, we failed to exclude the possibility of near halving of odds of adverse outcome (aOR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.55-1.01]; p = 0.058). CONCLUSIONS: Attendings in PICU programs with a fellowship have fewer opportunities to perform TI and lower first attempt success rates. Opportunities exist for attending TI skill maintenance, especially in PICUs with a PCCM fellowship.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".