Using natural language processing to compare task-specific verbal cues in coached versus noncoached cardiac arrest teams during simulated pediatrics resuscitation.

Coaches improve cardiopulmonary (CPR) outcomes in real-world and simulated settings. To explore verbal feedback that targets CPR quality, we used natural language processing (NLP) methodologies on transcripts from a published pediatric randomized trial (coach vs. no coach in simulated CPR). Study objectives included determining any differences by trial arm in (1) overall communication and (2) metrics over minutes of CPR and (3) exploring overall frequencies and temporal patterns according to degrees of CPR excellence. A human-generated transcription service produced 40 team transcripts. Automated text search with manual review assigned semantic category; word count; and presence of verbal cues for general CPR, compression depth or rate, or positive feedback to transcript utterances. Resulting cue counts per minute (CPM) were corresponded to CPR quality based on compression rate and depth per minute. CPMs were compared across trial arms and over the 18 min of CPR. Adaptation to excellence was analyzed across four patterns of CPR excellence determined by k-shape methods. Overall coached teams experienced more rate-directive, depth-directive, and positive verbal cues compared with noncoached teams. The frequency of coaches' depth cues changed over minutes of CPR, indicating adaptation. In coached teams, the number of depth-directive cues differed among the four patterns of CPR excellence. Noncoached teams experienced fewer utterances by type, with no adaptation over time or to CPR performance. NLP extracted verbal metrics and their patterns in resuscitation sessions provides insight into communication patterns and skills used by CPR coaches and other team members. This could help to further optimize CPR training, feedback, excellence, and outcomes.

Informations de copyright

© 2021 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

The authors have no potential conflicts to disclose.