BACKGROUND: Though rare, allergic reactions occur as a result of administration of low osmolality nonionic iodinated contrast material to pediatric patients. Currently available resuscitation aids are inadequate in guiding radiologists' initial management of such reactions. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiology resident competency with and without a computer-based interactive resuscitation tool in the management of life-threatening events in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the IRB. Radiology residents (n = 19; 14 male, 5 female; 19 certified in basic life support/advanced cardiac life support; 1 certified in pediatric advanced life support) were videotaped during two simulated 5-min anaphylaxis scenarios involving 18-month-old and 8-year-old mannequins (order randomized). No advance warning was given. In half of the scenarios, a computer-based interactive resuscitation tool with a response-driven decision tree was available to residents (order randomized). Competency measures included: calling a code, administering oxygen and epinephrine, and correctly dosing epinephrine. RESULTS: Residents performed significantly more essential interventions with the computer-based resuscitation tool than without (72/76 vs. 49/76, P < 0.001). Significantly more residents appropriately dosed epinephrine with the tool than without (17/19 vs. 1/19; P < 0.001). More residents called a code with the tool than without (17/19 vs. 14/19; P = 0.08). A learning effect was present: average times to call a code, request oxygen, and administer epinephrine were shorter in the second scenario (129 vs. 93 s, P = 0.24; 52 vs. 30 s, P < 0.001; 152 vs. 82 s, P = 0.025, respectively). All the trainees found the resuscitation tool helpful and potentially useful in a true pediatric emergency. CONCLUSION: A computer-based interactive resuscitation tool significantly improved resident performance in managing pediatric emergencies in the radiology department.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Though rare, allergic reactions occur as a result of administration of low osmolality nonionic iodinated contrast material to pediatric patients. Currently available resuscitation aids are inadequate in guiding radiologists' initial management of such reactions. OBJECTIVE: To compare radiology resident competency with and without a computer-based interactive resuscitation tool in the management of life-threatening events in pediatric patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was approved by the IRB. Radiology residents (n = 19; 14 male, 5 female; 19 certified in basic life support/advanced cardiac life support; 1 certified in pediatric advanced life support) were videotaped during two simulated 5-min anaphylaxis scenarios involving 18-month-old and 8-year-old mannequins (order randomized). No advance warning was given. In half of the scenarios, a computer-based interactive resuscitation tool with a response-driven decision tree was available to residents (order randomized). Competency measures included: calling a code, administering oxygen and epinephrine, and correctly dosing epinephrine. RESULTS: Residents performed significantly more essential interventions with the computer-based resuscitation tool than without (72/76 vs. 49/76, P < 0.001). Significantly more residents appropriately dosed epinephrine with the tool than without (17/19 vs. 1/19; P < 0.001). More residents called a code with the tool than without (17/19 vs. 14/19; P = 0.08). A learning effect was present: average times to call a code, request oxygen, and administer epinephrine were shorter in the second scenario (129 vs. 93 s, P = 0.24; 52 vs. 30 s, P < 0.001; 152 vs. 82 s, P = 0.025, respectively). All the trainees found the resuscitation tool helpful and potentially useful in a true pediatric emergency. CONCLUSION: A computer-based interactive resuscitation tool significantly improved resident performance in managing pediatric emergencies in the radiology department.
Authors: Koenraad J Mortelé; Maria-Raquel Oliva; Silvia Ondategui; Pablo R Ros; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ana Maria Gaca; Donald P Frush; Susan M Hohenhaus; Xuemei Luo; Anjanett Ancarana; Angela Pickles; Karen S Frush Journal: Radiology Date: 2007-10 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Jonathan R Dillman; Peter J Strouse; James H Ellis; Richard H Cohan; Sophia C Jan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Luciana Mara Monti Fonseca; Natália Del' Angelo Aredes; Ananda Maria Fernandes; Luís Manuel da Cunha Batalha; Jorge Manuel Amado Apóstolo; José Carlos Amado Martins; Manuel Alves Rodrigues Journal: Rev Lat Am Enfermagem Date: 2016-10-10
Authors: Christopher A Barker; Robert W Mutter; Lauren Q Shapiro; Zhigang Zhang; Suzanne L Wolden; Joachim Yahalom Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-12 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Mary E Mancini; Farhan Bhanji; John E Billi; Jennifer Dennett; Judith Finn; Matthew Huei-Ming Ma; Gavin D Perkins; David L Rodgers; Mary Fran Hazinski; Ian Jacobs; Peter T Morley Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2010-10 Impact factor: 5.262