↓ Skip to main content

What should be included in the assessment of laypersons’ paediatric basic life support skills? Results from a Delphi consensus study

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
54 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What should be included in the assessment of laypersons’ paediatric basic life support skills? Results from a Delphi consensus study
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13049-018-0474-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Asbjørn Børch Hasselager, Torsten Lauritsen, Tim Kristensen, Cathrine Bohnstedt, Claus Sønderskov, Doris Østergaard, Martin Grønnebæk Tolsgaard

Abstract

Assessment of laypersons' Paediatric Basic Life Support (PBLS) skills is important to ensure acquisition of effective PBLS competencies. However limited evidence exists on which PBLS skills are essential for laypersons. The same challenges exist with respect to the assessment of foreign body airway obstruction management (FBAOM) skills. We aimed to establish international consensus on how to assess laypersons' PBLS and FBAOM skills. A Delphi consensus survey was conducted. Out of a total of 84 invited experts, 28 agreed to participate. During the first Delphi round experts suggested items to assess laypersons' PBLS and FBAOM skills. In the second round, the suggested items received comments from and were rated by 26 experts (93%) on a 5-point scale (1 = not relevant to 5 = essential). Revised items were anonymously presented in a third round for comments and 23 (82%) experts completed a re-rating. Items with a score above 3 by more than 80% of the experts in the third round were included in an assessment instrument. In the first round, 19 and 15 items were identified to assess PBLS and FBAOM skills, respectively. The ratings and comments from the last two rounds resulted in nine and eight essential assessment items for PBLS and FBAOM skills, respectively. The PBLS items included: "Responsiveness"," Call for help", "Open airway"," Check breathing", "Rescue breaths", "Compressions", "Ventilations", "Time factor" and "Use of AED". The FBAOM items included: "Identify different stages of foreign body airway obstruction", "Identify consciousness", "Call for help", "Back blows", "Chest thrusts/abdominal thrusts according to age", "Identify loss of consciousness and change to CPR", "Assessment of breathing" and "Ventilation". For assessment of laypersons some PBLS and FBAOM skills described in guidelines are more important than others. Four out of nine of PBLS skills focus on airway and breathing skills, supporting the major importance of these skills for laypersons' resuscitation attempts. International consensus on how to assess laypersons' paediatric basic life support and foreign body airway obstruction management skills was established. The assessment of these skills may help to determine when laypersons have acquired competencies. Not relevant.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 54 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 54 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 5 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 7%
Other 13 24%
Unknown 15 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 30%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Arts and Humanities 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 16 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,944,512
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#747
of 1,265 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#204,409
of 441,922 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#15
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,265 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,922 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.