OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of a Web-based resuscitation recording program compared with the handwritten method. METHODS: A Web site was developed to record in-hospital resuscitation events and a mock resuscitation was recorded using both the Web site and handwritten method by emergency nurses. Accurate recorded events and times were compared between the two methods through the use of a video clip. Paired t tests were used to compare differences in absolute timing error, the number of omitted events out of 11 reference events and total recorded events. RESULTS: Twenty-one emergency nurses recorded simulated resuscitation events using both the handwritten and Web-based computerised recording system. The mean absolute timing errors were significantly lower using the computerised recording program (37.3 s (SD 17.1) versus 8.3 s (SD 5.3), p<0.001). The mean number of omissions for the computerised program was 1.8 (SD 0.8) compared with 1.4 (SD 1.1) for the handwritten method (p = 0.202). The mean number of total recorded events for the computerised program was 16.5 (SD 3.5) compared with 15.0 (SD 3.8) for the handwritten method (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a Web-based recording program decreased timing error while causing no differences in the number of recorded or omitted events in a laboratory setting.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of a Web-based resuscitation recording program compared with the handwritten method. METHODS: A Web site was developed to record in-hospital resuscitation events and a mock resuscitation was recorded using both the Web site and handwritten method by emergency nurses. Accurate recorded events and times were compared between the two methods through the use of a video clip. Paired t tests were used to compare differences in absolute timing error, the number of omitted events out of 11 reference events and total recorded events. RESULTS: Twenty-one emergency nurses recorded simulated resuscitation events using both the handwritten and Web-based computerised recording system. The mean absolute timing errors were significantly lower using the computerised recording program (37.3 s (SD 17.1) versus 8.3 s (SD 5.3), p<0.001). The mean number of omissions for the computerised program was 1.8 (SD 0.8) compared with 1.4 (SD 1.1) for the handwritten method (p = 0.202). The mean number of total recorded events for the computerised program was 16.5 (SD 3.5) compared with 15.0 (SD 3.8) for the handwritten method (p = 0.063). CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that a Web-based recording program decreased timing error while causing no differences in the number of recorded or omitted events in a laboratory setting.
Authors: T Grundgeiger; M Albert; D Reinhardt; O Happel; A Steinisch; T Wurmb Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2016-04-16 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Andrew J Goodwin; Danny Eytan; William Dixon; Sebastian D Goodfellow; Zakary Doherty; Robert W Greer; Alistair McEwan; Mark Tracy; Peter C Laussen; Azadeh Assadi; Mjaye Mazwi Journal: Front Digit Health Date: 2022-08-18