Matthew D McEvoy1, William R Hand, W David Stoll, Cory M Furse, Paul J Nietert. 1. From the *Department of Anesthesiology, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, TN; †Departments of Anesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, and ‡Department of Medicine, Division of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A hardcopy or paper cognitive aid has been shown to improve performance during the management of simulated local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) when given to the team leader. However, there remains room for improvement to ensure a system that can achieve perfect adherence to the published guidelines for LAST management. Recent research has shown that implementing a checklist via a designated reader may be of benefit. Accordingly, we sought to investigate the effect of an electronic decision support tool (DST) and designated "Reader" role on team performance during an in situ simulation of LAST. METHODS: Participants were randomized to Reader + DST (n = 16, rDST) and Control (n = 15, memory alone). The rDST group received the assistance of a dedicated Reader on the response team who was equipped with an electronic DST. The primary outcome measure was adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: For overall and critical percent correct scores, the rDST group scored higher than Control (99.3% vs 72.2%, P < 0.0001; 99.5% vs 70%, P < 0.0001, respectively). In the LAST scenario, 0 (0%) of 15 in the control group performed 100% of critical management steps, whereas 15 (93.8%) of 16 in the rDST group did so (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, randomized single-blinded study, a designated Reader with an electronic DST improved adherence to guidelines in the management of an in situ simulation of LAST. Such tools are promising in the future of medicine, but further research is needed to ensure the best methods for implementing them in the clinical arena.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A hardcopy or paper cognitive aid has been shown to improve performance during the management of simulated local anesthetic systemic toxicity (LAST) when given to the team leader. However, there remains room for improvement to ensure a system that can achieve perfect adherence to the published guidelines for LAST management. Recent research has shown that implementing a checklist via a designated reader may be of benefit. Accordingly, we sought to investigate the effect of an electronic decision support tool (DST) and designated "Reader" role on team performance during an in situ simulation of LAST. METHODS:Participants were randomized to Reader + DST (n = 16, rDST) and Control (n = 15, memory alone). The rDST group received the assistance of a dedicated Reader on the response team who was equipped with an electronic DST. The primary outcome measure was adherence to guidelines. RESULTS: For overall and critical percent correct scores, the rDST group scored higher than Control (99.3% vs 72.2%, P < 0.0001; 99.5% vs 70%, P < 0.0001, respectively). In the LAST scenario, 0 (0%) of 15 in the control group performed 100% of critical management steps, whereas 15 (93.8%) of 16 in the rDST group did so (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective, randomized single-blinded study, a designated Reader with an electronic DST improved adherence to guidelines in the management of an in situ simulation of LAST. Such tools are promising in the future of medicine, but further research is needed to ensure the best methods for implementing them in the clinical arena.
Authors: Bernadette M Henrichs; Michael S Avidan; Dave J Murray; John R Boulet; Joe Kras; Beverley Krause; Rebecca Snider; Alex S Evers Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Kristen L Nelson; Nicole A Shilkofski; Jamie A Haggerty; Mary Saliski; Elizabeth A Hunt Journal: Simul Healthc Date: 2008 Impact factor: 1.929
Authors: David J Murray; John R Boulet; Michael Avidan; Joseph F Kras; Bernadette Henrichs; Julie Woodhouse; Alex S Evers Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2007-11 Impact factor: 7.892
Authors: Scott C Watkins; Shilo Anders; Anna Clebone; Elisabeth Hughes; Laura Zeigler; Vikram Patel; Yaping Shi; Matthew S Shotwell; Matthew McEvoy; Matthew B Weinger Journal: J Clin Monit Comput Date: 2015-06-12 Impact factor: 2.502
Authors: Stephen Gregory; Teresa M Murray-Torres; Bradley A Fritz; Arbi Ben Abdallah; Daniel L Helsten; Troy S Wildes; Anshuman Sharma; Michael S Avidan Journal: F1000Res Date: 2018-05-22
Authors: Kaspar F Bachmann; Christian Vetter; Lars Wenzel; Christoph Konrad; Andreas P Vogt Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-08-15 Impact factor: 5.428