Medical practitioners’ confidence in performing paediatric critical procedures in the emergency department
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Paediatric patients make up a significant portion of emergency department (ED) visits, and critically ill children require timely, life-saving procedures. While medical practitioners (MPs) may have the necessary skills, a lack of confidence can prevent them from applying these skills effectively, potentially impacting patient outcomes. This study aimed to assess MPs' confidence in performing critical procedures for paediatric patients and to identify factors influencing it. Methods: This is a cross-sectional descriptive study, conducted in four EDs in KwaZulu-Natal between 07 July 2023 and 11 November 2023. A questionnaire completed by MPs with confidence levels ranked on a five point Likert Scale was used. Results: = 0.02). The amount of time spent treating paediatric patients did not affect confidence levels. Performing a procedure more frequently generally resulted in a higher level of confidence apart from that of newborn cardiopulmonary resuscitation and cardioversion. Conclusion: The confidence of MPs (translating to 60% confident) was significantly less than their perceived importance of the procedure. This could suggest motivation to improve their ability to perform these skills. The rank of doctor and frequency of procedures performed can affect an MP's confidence. Medical practitioners being confident when performing critical procedures in paediatric patients can possibly improve outcomes, which needs to be researched further. Contribution: MPs may require ongoing practical medical training or simulations to boost their confidence during paediatric procedures.
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 | 0.015 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".