Effects of designated leadership and team-size on cardiopulmonary resuscitation: The Basel-Washington SIMulation (BaWaSim) trial

Leadership factors for cardiopulmonary resuscitation for clinicians in-hospital; behaviours, skills and strategies: A systematic review and synthesis without meta-analysis

AIM

To identify leadership factors for clinicians during in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

DESIGN

Systematic review with synthesis without meta-analysis.

METHODS

The review was guided by SWiM, assessed for quality using CASP and reported with PRISMA.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane, EMBASE, PubMed, Medline, Scopus and CINAHL (years of 2013-2023) and a manual reference list search of all included studies.

RESULTS

A total of 60 papers were identified with three major themes of useful resuscitation leadership; 'social skills', 'cognitive skills and behaviour' and 'leadership development skills' were identified. Main factors included delegating effectively, while being situationally aware of team members' ability and progress during resuscitation, and being empathetic and supportive, yet 'controlling the room' using a hands-off style. Shared decision-making to reduce cognitive load for one leader was shown to improve effective teamwork. Findings were limited by heterogeneity of studies and inconsistently applied tools to measure leadership.

CONCLUSION

Traditional authoritarian leadership styles are not wanted by team members with preference for shared leadership and collaboration. Balancing this with the need for team members to see leaders in 'control of the room' brings new challenges for leaders and trainers of resuscitation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PROFESSION

All clinicians need effective leadership skills for cardiopulmonary resuscitation in-hospital. Nurses provide first response and ongoing leadership for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Nurses typically display suitable skills that align with useful resuscitation leader factors.

IMPACT

What were the main findings? Collaboration rather than an authoritarian approach to leadership is preferred by team members. Nurses are suitable to 'control the room'. Restricting resuscitation team size will manage disruptive behaviour of team members.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration: CRD42022385630.

PATIENT OF PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient of public contribution.

Collective leadership to improve professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being

BACKGROUND

Collective leadership is strongly advocated by international stakeholders as a key approach for health service delivery, as a response to increasingly complex forms of organisation defined by rapid changes in health technology, professionalisation and growing specialisation. Inadequate leadership weakens health systems and can contribute to adverse events, including refusal to prioritise and implement safety recommendations consistently, and resistance to addressing staff burnout. Globally, increases in life expectancy and the number of people living with multiple long-term conditions contribute to greater complexity of healthcare systems. Such a complex environment requires the contribution and leadership of multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of collective leadership for healthcare providers on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being, when compared with usual centralised leadership approaches.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, five other databases and two trials registers on 5 January 2021. We also searched grey literature, checked references for additional citations and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. We did not apply any limits on language.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two groups of two authors independently reviewed, screened and selected studies for inclusion; the principal author was part of both groups to ensure consistency. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared collective leadership interventions with usual centralised leadership or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three groups of two authors independently extracted data from the included studies and evaluated study quality; the principal author took part in all groups. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified three randomised trials for inclusion in our synthesis. All studies were conducted in acute care inpatient settings; the country settings were Canada, Iran and the USA. A total of 955 participants were included across all the studies. There was considerable variation in participants, interventions and measures for quantifying outcomes. We were only able to complete a meta-analysis for one outcome (leadership) and completed a narrative synthesis for other outcomes. We judged all studies as having an unclear risk of bias overall. Collective leadership interventions probably improve leadership (3 RCTs, 955 participants). Collective leadership may improve team performance (1 RCT, 164 participants). We are uncertain about the effect of collective leadership on clinical performance (1 RCT, 60 participants). We are uncertain about the intervention effect on healthcare outcomes, including health status (inpatient mortality) (1 RCT, 60 participants). Collective leadership may slightly improve staff well-being by reducing work-related stress (1 RCT, 164 participants). We identified no direct evidence concerning burnout and psychological symptoms. We are uncertain of the intervention effects on unintended consequences, specifically on staff absence (1 RCT, 60 participants).  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Collective leadership involves multiple professionals sharing viewpoints and knowledge with the potential to influence positively the quality of care and staff well-being. Our confidence in the effects of collective leadership interventions on professional practice, healthcare outcomes and staff well-being is moderate in leadership outcomes, low in team performance and work-related stress, and very low for clinical performance, inpatient mortality and staff absence outcomes. The evidence was of moderate, low and very low certainty due to risk of bias and imprecision, meaning future evidence may change our interpretation of the results. There is a need for more high-quality studies in this area, with consistent reporting of leadership, team performance, clinical performance, health status and staff well-being outcomes.

Association Between Hospital Resuscitation Team Leader Credentials and Survival Outcomes for In-hospital Cardiac Arrest

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether survival rates for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) vary across hospitals depending on whether resuscitations are typically led by an attending physician, a physician trainee, or a nonphysician.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In 2018, we conducted a survey of hospitals participating in the national Get with the Guidelines - Resuscitation registry for IHCA. Using responses from the question "Who typically leads codes at your institution?" we categorized hospitals on the basis of who typically leads their resuscitations: attending physician, physician trainee, or nonphysician. We then compared risk-adjusted hospital rates of return of spontaneous circulation, survival to discharge, and favorable neurological survival from 2015 to 2017 between these 3 hospital groups by using multivariable hierarchical regression.

RESULTS

Overall, 193 hospitals completed the study survey, representing a total of 44,477 IHCAs (mean age, 65.0±15.5 years; 40.8% were women). Most hospitals had resuscitations led by physicians, with 121 (62.7%) led by an attending physician, 58 (30.0%) by a physician trainee, and 14 (7.3%) by a nonphysician. The risk-standardized rates of survival to discharge were similar across hospitals, regardless of whether resuscitations were typically led by an attending physician, a physician trainee, or a nonphysician (25.6%±4.8%, 25.9%±4.7%, and 25.7%±3.6%, respectively; P=.88). Similarly, there were no differences between the 3 groups in risk-adjusted rates of return of spontaneous circulation (71.7%±6.3%, 73%±6.3%, and 73.4%±6.4%; P=.30) and favorable neurological survival (21.6%±7.1%, 22.7%±6.1%, and 20.9%±6.5%; P=.50).

CONCLUSION

In hospitals in a national IHCA registry, IHCA resuscitations were usually led by physicians. However, there was no association between a hospital's typical resuscitation team leader credentials and IHCA survival outcomes.

Hands-On Times, Adherence to Recommendations and Variance in Execution among Three Different CPR Algorithms: A Prospective Randomized Single-Blind Simulator-Based Trial

Background: Alternative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) algorithms, introduced to improve outcomes after cardiac arrest, have so far not been compared in randomized trials with established CPR guidelines. Methods: 286 physician teams were confronted with simulated cardiac arrests and randomly allocated to one of three versions of a CPR algorithm: (1) current International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) guidelines (“ILCOR”), (2) the cardiocerebral resuscitation (“CCR”) protocol (3 cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions with no ventilation), or (3) a local interpretation of the current guidelines (“Arnsberg“, immediate insertion of a supraglottic airway and cycles of 200 uninterrupted chest compressions). The primary endpoint was percentage of hands-on time. Results: Median percentage of hands-on time was 88 (interquartile range (IQR) 6) in “ILCOR” teams, 90 (IQR 5) in “CCR” teams (p = 0.001 vs. “ILCOR”), and 89 (IQR 4) in “Arnsberg” teams (p = 0.032 vs. “ILCOR”; p = 0.10 vs. “CCR”). “ILCOR” teams delivered fewer chest compressions and deviated more from allocated targets than “CCR” and “Arnsberg” teams. “CCR” teams demonstrated the least within-team and between-team variance. Conclusions: Compared to current ILCOR guidelines, two alternative CPR algorithms advocating cycles of uninterrupted chest compressions resulted in very similar hands-on times, fewer deviations from targets, and less within-team and between-team variance in execution.

Emergencies within hospital wards: An observational study of the non-technical skills of medical emergency teams

BACKGROUND

Medical emergency teams are essential in responding to acute deterioration of patients in hospitals, requiring both clinical and non-technical skills. This study aims to assess the non-technical skills of medical emergency teams during hospital ward emergencies and explore team members perceptions and experiences of the use non-technical skills during medical emergencies.

METHODS

A multi-methods study was conducted in two phases. During phase one observation and assessment of non-technical skills used in medical emergencies using the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM™) was conducted; and in the phase two in-depth interviews were undertaken with medical emergency team members.

RESULTS

Based on 20 observations, mean TEAM™ ratings for non-technical skill domains were: 'leadership' 5.0 out of 8 (±2.0); 'teamwork' 21.6 out of 28 (±3.6); and 'task management' 6.5 out of 8 (±1.4). The mean 'global' score was 7.5 out of 10 (±1.5). The qualitative findings identified three areas, 'individual', 'team' and 'other' contributing factors, which impacted upon the non-technical skills of medical emergency teams.

CONCLUSION

Non-technical skills of hospital medical emergency teams differ, and the impact of the skill mix on resuscitation outcomes was recognised by team members. These findings emphasize the importance non-technical skills in resuscitation training and well-developed processes for medical emergency teams.