Y A Zausig1, Y Bayer, N Hacke, B Sinner, W Zink, C Grube, B M Graf. 1. Department of Anaesthesiology, Emergency and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Goettingen, Robert-Koch-Strasse 40, 37075 Goettingen, Germany. yzausig@zari.de
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In medicine, the use of standard operating procedures (SOPs) is often evaluated using questionnaires (QUES). However, QUES can have limitations with regard to method, thus leading to errors. Simulation (SIM) offers another opportunity for evaluation. We hypothesized that medical errors in the evaluation of SOPs using QUES could be detected by SIM, and that SIM is better qualified to demonstrate applied medicine. METHODS: We investigated the use of SOPs in anaesthesia, rapid sequence induction (RSI), by means of a QUES (n=42) or SIM (n=42) among 84 anaesthesiologists. Seven measures for preventing aspiration during induction of anaesthesia were examined and evaluated according to a predetermined points system. RESULTS: The average number of times that precautionary measures to prevent aspiration were mentioned in the QUES [4.8 (0.9)] or performed during SIM [5.0 (1.1)] did not differ between the two groups. Pre-oxygenation was the most frequently described or performed measure (95% vs 93%). However, other measures, such as avoidance of positive pressure ventilation (45% vs 85%), differed significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS:QUES and SIM are powerful instruments for evaluating the implementation of SOPs such as RSI. SIM demonstrates automated behaviours and thus more clearly represents behaviours used in clinical practice than is possible to demonstrate using QUES. Using a combination of these two instruments, method errors resulting from the individual instruments can be reduced.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In medicine, the use of standard operating procedures (SOPs) is often evaluated using questionnaires (QUES). However, QUES can have limitations with regard to method, thus leading to errors. Simulation (SIM) offers another opportunity for evaluation. We hypothesized that medical errors in the evaluation of SOPs using QUES could be detected by SIM, and that SIM is better qualified to demonstrate applied medicine. METHODS: We investigated the use of SOPs in anaesthesia, rapid sequence induction (RSI), by means of a QUES (n=42) or SIM (n=42) among 84 anaesthesiologists. Seven measures for preventing aspiration during induction of anaesthesia were examined and evaluated according to a predetermined points system. RESULTS: The average number of times that precautionary measures to prevent aspiration were mentioned in the QUES [4.8 (0.9)] or performed during SIM [5.0 (1.1)] did not differ between the two groups. Pre-oxygenation was the most frequently described or performed measure (95% vs 93%). However, other measures, such as avoidance of positive pressure ventilation (45% vs 85%), differed significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: QUES and SIM are powerful instruments for evaluating the implementation of SOPs such as RSI. SIM demonstrates automated behaviours and thus more clearly represents behaviours used in clinical practice than is possible to demonstrate using QUES. Using a combination of these two instruments, method errors resulting from the individual instruments can be reduced.