Abstract 44: Evaluation of Knowledge Levels in Basic Life Support of Students from Last Year of Medicine Graduation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Due to high rates of cardiac arrest in countries like USA, Canada and Brazil, it is very important that students in the health field know the Basic Life Support (BLS), especially medical students. Hypothesis: We evaluated the hypothesis that medical students in the last year of medicine graduation of a public university of Sao Paulo, Brazil, would be able to pass the practical test of the course of the American Heart Association BLS. Methods: We studied 136 medical students in the last year of medicine graduation. The assessment of knowledge levels of BLS was performed by an experienced instructor with the check-list of the BLS Test of AHA according to the 2005 Guidelines of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation by AHA. Skills were realized on a BLS manikin. Results: The mean age was 24.4 ±1.8 years, 68% were male. Five students had the BLS course certificate by AHA. It was observed that all of the participants did not accomplish, at least, one of the evaluation requirements. According to the criteria of the Test BLS: 94% checked for response, 68% told someone to phone emergency response number and 86% got an AED, 70% opened correctly the airway, 55% checked for no breathing, 45% gave two breaths, 71% evaluated carotid pulse, 64% delivered first cycle of compressions at correct rate, 52% gave two breaths, 46% delivered second cycle of compressions at correct hand position, 56% gave two breaths. Concerning the AED use, 36% turned AED on, 74% selected proper AED pads and places correctly, 40% cleared victim to analyze, 69% cleared victim to shock, 95% restarted chest compressions, 83% kept pads on the chest of the manikin. Conclusion: The results showed that an unsatisfactory level of knowledge in BLS is presented in the final year of medicine graduation, and suggests that the BLS course should be part of the curriculum of medical schools.
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.007 | 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".