A simulation-based pilot study of crisis checklists in the emergency department

Cognitive aids used in simulated resuscitation: A systematic review

Objectives

To compare the effectiveness of cognitive aid use during resuscitation with no use of cognitive aids on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and performance.

Methods

This systematic review followed the PICOST format. All randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies evaluating cognitive aid use during (simulated) resuscitation were included in any setting. Unpublished studies were excluded. We did not include studies that reported cognitive aid use during training for resuscitation alone. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until July 2019 (updated August 2022, November 2023, and 23 April 2024). We did not search trial registries. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and certainty of evidence (using GRADE) were performed by two researchers. PRISMA reporting standards were followed, and registration (PROSPERO CRD42020159162, version 19 July 2022) was performed. No funding has been obtained.

Results

The literature search identified 5029 citations. After removing 512 duplicates, reviewing the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles yielded 103 articles for full-text review. Hand-searching identified 3 more studies for full-text review. Of these, 29 studies were included in the final analysis. No clinical studies involving patients were identified. The review was limited to indirect evidence from simulation studies only. The results are presented in five different populations: healthcare professionals managing simulated resuscitations in neonates, children, adult advanced life support, and other emergencies; as well as lay providers managing resuscitations. Main outcomes were adherence to protocol or process, adherence to protocol or process assessed by performance score, CPR performance and retention, and feasibility of chatbot guidance. The risk of bias assessment ranged from low to high. Studies in neonatal, paediatric and adult life support delivered by healthcare professionals showed benefits of using cognitive aids, however, some studies evaluating resuscitations by lay providers reported undesirable effects. The performance of a meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to very low due to serious indirectness, (very) serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and (very) serious imprecision.

Conclusion

Because of the very low certainty evidence from simulation studies, we suggest that cognitive aids should be used by healthcare professionals during resuscitation. In contrast, we do not suggest use of cognitive aids for lay providers, based on low certainty evidence.

Critical Event Checklists for Simulated In-Hospital Dysrhythmias in Children with Heart Disease

Children with heart disease are at increased risk of unstable dysrhythmias and in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). Clinician adherence to lifesaving processes of care is an important contributor to improving patient outcomes. This study evaluated whether critical event checklists improve adherence to lifesaving processes during simulated acute events secondary to unstable dysrhythmias. A randomized controlled trial was conducted in a cardiac ward in a tertiary care, academic children's hospital. Unannounced simulated emergencies involving dysrhythmias in pediatric patients with underlying cardiac disease were conducted weekly. Responders were pediatric and anesthesiology residents, respiratory therapists, and bedside registered nurses. Six teams were randomized into two groups-three received checklists (intervention) and three did not (control). Each team participated in four simulated scenarios over a 4-week pediatric cardiology rotation. Participants received a brief slideshow presentation, which included a checklist orientation, at the start of their rotation. Simulations were video and audio recorded and those with three or more participants were included for analysis. The primary outcome was team adherence to lifesaving processes, expressed as the percentage of completed critical management steps. Secondary outcomes included participant perceptions of the checklist usefulness in identifying and managing dysrhythmias. We used generalized estimating equations (GEE) models, which accounted for clustering within groups, to evaluate the effects of the intervention. A total of 24 simulations were conducted; one of the 24 simulations was excluded due to an insufficient number of participants. In our GEE analysis, 81.21% (78.96%, 83.47%) of critical steps were completed with checklists available versus 68.06% (59.38%, 76.74%) without checklists (p = 0.004). Ninety-three percent of study participants reported that they would use the checklists during an unstable dysrhythmia of a child with underlying cardiac disease. Checklists were associated with improved adherence to lifesaving processes during simulated resuscitations for unstable pediatric dysrhythmias. These findings support the use of scenario specific checklists for the management of unstable dysrhythmias in simulations involving pediatric patients with underlying cardiac disease. Future studies should investigate whether checklists are as effective in actual pediatric in-hospital emergencies.

Clinical use of an emergency manual by resuscitation teams and impact on performance in the emergency department: a prospective mixed-methods study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Simulation-based studies indicate that crisis checklist use improves management of patients with critical conditions in the emergency department (ED). An interview-based study suggests that use of an emergency manual (EM)-a collection of crisis checklists-improves management of clinical perioperative crises. There is a need for in-depth prospective studies of EM use during clinical practice, evaluating when and how EMs are used and impact on patient management.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This 6-month long study prospectively evaluates a digital EM during management of priority 1 patients in the Skåne University Hospital at Lund's ED. Resuscitation teams are encouraged to use the EM after a management plan has been derived ('Do-Confirm'). The documenting nurse activates and reads from the EM, and checklists are displayed on a large screen visible to all team members. Whether the EM is activated, and which sections are displayed, are automatically recorded. Interventions performed thanks to Do-Confirm EM use are registered by the nurse. Fifty cases featuring such interventions are reviewed by specialists in emergency medicine blinded to whether the interventions were performed prior to or after EM use. All interventions are graded as indicated, of neutral relevance or not indicated. The primary outcome measures are the proportions of interventions performed thanks to Do-Confirm EM use graded as indicated, of neutral relevance, and not indicated. A secondary outcome measure is the team's subjective evaluation of the EM's value on a Likert scale of 1-6. Team members can report events related to EM use, and information from these events is extracted through structured interviews.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2022-01896-01). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and abstracts submitted to national and international conferences to disseminate our findings.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05649891.

Guidelines on human factors in critical situations 2023

OBJECTIVE

To provide guidelines to define the place of human factors in the management of critical situations in anaesthesia and critical care.

DESIGN

A committee of nineteen experts from the SFAR and GFHS learned societies was set up. A policy of declaration of links of interest was applied and respected throughout the guideline-producing process. Likewise, the committee did not benefit from any funding from a company marketing a health product (drug or medical device). The committee followed the GRADE® method (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) to assess the quality of the evidence on which the recommendations were based.

METHODS

We aimed to formulate recommendations according to the GRADE® methodology for four different fields: 1/ communication, 2/ organisation, 3/ working environment and 4/ training. Each question was formulated according to the PICO format (Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome). The literature review and recommendations were formulated according to the GRADE® methodology.

RESULTS

The experts' synthesis work and application of the GRADE® method resulted in 21 recommendations. Since the GRADE® method could not be applied in its entirety to all the questions, the guidelines used the SFAR "Recommendations for Professional Practice" A means of secured communication (RPP) format and the recommendations were formulated as expert opinions.

CONCLUSION

Based on strong agreement between experts, we were able to produce 21 recommendations to guide human factors in critical situations.