Association Between Hospital Debriefing Practices With Adherence to Resuscitation Process Measures and Outcomes for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Survey of Pediatric Critical Care Fellows on Postresuscitation Debriefing

Purpose

Current guidelines recommend debriefing following medical resuscitations to improve patient outcomes. The goal of this study was to describe national trends in postresuscitation debriefing practices among pediatric critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows to identify potential gaps in fellow education.

Methods

A 13-item survey was distributed to fellows in all 76 ACGME-accredited PCCM programs in the United States in the spring of 2021. The online survey addressed frequency and timing of debriefings following medical resuscitations, whether formal training is provided, which medical professionals are present, and providers' comfort level leading a debriefing. Results were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

Results

A total of 102 responses (out of a possible N of 536) were gathered from current PCCM fellows. All fellows (100%) reported participation in a medical resuscitation. Only 21% stated that debriefings occurred after every resuscitation event, and 44% did not follow a structured protocol for debriefing. While 66% reported feeling very or somewhat comfortable leading the debriefing, 19% felt either somewhat uncomfortable or very uncomfortable. A vast majority (92%) of participating fellows believed that debriefing would be helpful in improving team member performance during future resuscitations, and 92% expressed interest in learning more about debriefing.

Conclusions

The majority of PCCM fellows do not receive formal training on how to lead a debriefing. Given that 74% of fellows in our study did not feel very comfortable leading a debriefing but almost universally expressed that this practice is useful for provider well-being and performance, there is a clear need for increased incorporation of debriefing training into PCCM curricula across the United States.

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.

Updating the model for Risk-Standardizing survival for In-Hospital cardiac arrest to facilitate hospital comparisons

BACKGROUND

Risk-standardized survival rates (RSSR) for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) have been widely used for hospital benchmarking and research. The novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a substantial decline in IHCA survival as COVID-19 infection is associated with markedly lower survival. Therefore, there is a need to update the model for computing RSSRs for IHCA given the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Within Get With The Guidelines®-Resuscitation, we identified 53,922 adult patients with IHCA from March, 2020 to December, 2021 (the COVID-19 era). Using hierarchical logistic regression, we derived and validated an updated model for survival to hospital discharge and compared the performance of this updated RSSR model with the previous model.

RESULTS

The survival rate was 21.0% and 20.8% for the derivation and validation cohorts, respectively. The model had good discrimination (C-statistic 0.72) and excellent calibration. The updated parsimonious model comprised 13 variables-all 9 predictors in the original model as well as 4 additional predictors, including COVID-19 infection status. When applied to data from the pre-pandemic period of 2018-2019, there was a strong correlation (r = 0.993) between RSSRs obtained from the updated and the previous models.

CONCLUSION

We have derived and validated an updated model to risk-standardize hospital rates of survival for IHCA. The updated model yielded RSSRs that were similar to the initial model for IHCAs in the pre-pandemic period and can be used for supporting ongoing efforts to benchmark hospitals and facilitate research that uses data from either before or after the emergence of COVID-19.