An alternative to the straddle-arm technique for a conscious infant who is choking: Towards a more universal skill
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problem The practice of straddling the infant’s legs on the rescuer’s upper arm, during the delivery of back blows and chest thrusts for the relief of foreign body obstruction (choking) in infants is not physically possible for many rescuers. We aimed to identify a more effective set of practices for holding an infant during the delivery of back blows and chest thrusts. Methods Using a participatory ergonomic research, study participants trialed alternative techniques in a structured and co-creative discovery process alongside a researcher. This was done with the aid of a custom-developed manikin, weighted and sized to the 50th percentile of a 9–11-month-old. Participant feedback was solicited quantitatively and qualitatively. Results & Conclusion Of the 40 initially enrolled, 37 participants completed the study protocol. We concluded that one technique appeared to be most amenable to research participants. This technique involves keeping the infant on the same side of the participant and rolling the baby to allow for the administration of back blows and chest thrusts. This paper also presents a thematic summary of the various considerations that became apparent throughout the work with participants. This one technique is put forward as a recommendation for how the skill should be taught, by default, within learning environments. Problème La technique consistant à placer un bébé à califourchon sur l’avant-bras d’un ou d’une secouriste pendant qu’on lui administre des tapes dans le dos et des poussées thoraciques pour désobstruer ses voies respiratoires peut s’avérer physiquement impossible pour certaines personnes. Nous avons cherché à déterminer un ensemble de pratiques plus efficaces pour tenir un bébé lors de l’administration de tapes dans le dos et de poussées thoraciques. Méthodes Dans le cadre d’une étude ergonomique participative, les participantes et participants ont testé des techniques de remplacement en suivant un processus de découverte structuré et cocréatif aux côtés d’une personne responsable de la recherche et au moyen d’un mannequin conçu spécialement pour l’étude. La taille et le poids du mannequin correspondaient à ceux d’un bébé âgé de 9 à 11 mois, dans le 50e centile. La rétroaction demandée aux participantes et participants était de nature quantitative et qualitative. Résultats et conclusion Sur les 40 personnes initialement inscrites pour participer à l’étude, 37 ont complété le protocole de recherche. Nous avons conclu qu’une des techniques à l’étude semblait convenir à la majorité des participantes et participants. Cette technique consiste à toujours garder le bébé du même côté, et à le retourner pour permettre l’administration de tapes dans le dos et de poussées thoraciques. L’article présente également un résumé thématique de divers constats qui se sont imposés au cours de l’étude. Il recommande l’enseignement de cette technique comme méthode par défaut dans les milieux d’apprentissage. Problema Practica de a poziționa «călare» sugarul, cu picioarele pe brațul salvatorului, în timpul aplicării loviturilor pe spate și a compresiilor pe piept pentru eliminarea obstrucției cu un corp străin (sufocare) la sugari, nu este posibilă din punct de vedere fizic pentru mulți salvatori. Ne-am propus să identificăm un set mai eficient de practici pentru ținerea unui sugar în timpul aplicării loviturilor pe spate și a compresiilor toracice. Metode Utilizând cercetarea ergonomică participativă, participanții la studiu au testat tehnici alternative, într-un proces de descoperire structurat și co-creativ, alături de un cercetător. Acest lucru a fost realizat cu ajutorul unui manechin creat la comandă, ponderat și dimensionat la percentila 50 a unui sugar de 9-11 luni. A fost solicitat feedback cantitativ și calitativ din partea participanților. Rezultate & Concluzii Din cei 40 de participanți înscriși inițial, 37 au finalizat protocolul de studiu. S-a ajuns la concluzia că doar una dintre tehnici pare să fie cea mai accesibilă participanților la cercetare. Această tehnică implică menținerea sugarului de aceeași parte a participantului și întoarcerii sugarului pentru a permite administrarea de lovituri pe spate și a compresiilor toracice. Această lucrare prezintă, de asemenea, un rezumat tematic al diferitelor considerații care au devenit evidente pe parcursul activităților cu participanții. Această tehnică este prezentată ca o recomandare pentru modul în care procedurile ar trebui predate în mediile de învățare.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".