Keith Couper1, Peter K Kimani2, Robin P Davies3, Annalie Baker3, Michelle Davies3, Natalie Husselbee3, Teresa Melody3, Frances Griffiths2, Gavin D Perkins4. 1. Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B9 5SS, UK; Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. 2. Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. 3. Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B9 5SS, UK. 4. Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, B9 5SS, UK; Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, CV4 7AL, UK. Electronic address: g.d.perkins@warwick.ac.uk.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac arrest educational debriefing has been associated with improvements in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality and patient outcome. The practical challenges associated with delivering some debriefing approaches may not be generalisable to the UK health setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the deliverability and effectiveness of three cardiac arrest debriefing approaches that were tailored to UK working practice. METHODS: We undertook a before/after study at three hospital sites. During the post-intervention period of the study, three cardiac arrest educational debriefing models were implemented at study hospitals (one model per hospital). To evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions, CPR quality and patient outcome data were collected from consecutive adult cardiac arrest events attended by the hospital cardiac arrest team. The primary outcome was chest compression depth. RESULTS: Between November 2011 and July 2014, 1198 cardiac arrest events were eligible for study inclusion (782 pre-intervention; 416 post-intervention). The quality of CPR was high at baseline. During the post-intervention period, cardiac arrest debriefing interventions were delivered to 191 clinicians on 344 occasions. Debriefing interventions were deliverable in practice, but were not associated with a clinically important improvement in CPR quality. The interventions had no effect on patient outcome. CONCLUSION: The delivery of these cardiac arrest educational debriefing strategies was feasible, but did not have a large effect on CPR quality. This may be attributable to the high-quality of CPR being delivered in study hospitals at baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN39758339.
BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac arrest educational debriefing has been associated with improvements in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) quality and patient outcome. The practical challenges associated with delivering some debriefing approaches may not be generalisable to the UK health setting. The aim of this study was to evaluate the deliverability and effectiveness of three cardiac arrest debriefing approaches that were tailored to UK working practice. METHODS: We undertook a before/after study at three hospital sites. During the post-intervention period of the study, three cardiac arrest educational debriefing models were implemented at study hospitals (one model per hospital). To evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions, CPR quality and patient outcome data were collected from consecutive adult cardiac arrest events attended by the hospital cardiac arrest team. The primary outcome was chest compression depth. RESULTS: Between November 2011 and July 2014, 1198 cardiac arrest events were eligible for study inclusion (782 pre-intervention; 416 post-intervention). The quality of CPR was high at baseline. During the post-intervention period, cardiac arrest debriefing interventions were delivered to 191 clinicians on 344 occasions. Debriefing interventions were deliverable in practice, but were not associated with a clinically important improvement in CPR quality. The interventions had no effect on patient outcome. CONCLUSION: The delivery of these cardiac arrest educational debriefing strategies was feasible, but did not have a large effect on CPR quality. This may be attributable to the high-quality of CPR being delivered in study hospitals at baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN39758339.
Authors: Jasmeet Soar; Bernd W Böttiger; Pierre Carli; Keith Couper; Charles D Deakin; Therese Djärv; Carsten Lott; Theresa Olasveengen; Peter Paal; Tommaso Pellis; Gavin D Perkins; Claudio Sandroni; Jerry P Nolan Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-08 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: Robert Greif; Andrew Lockey; Jan Breckwoldt; Francesc Carmona; Patricia Conaghan; Artem Kuzovlev; Lucas Pflanzl-Knizacek; Ferenc Sari; Salma Shammet; Andrea Scapigliati; Nigel Turner; Joyce Yeung; Koenraad G Monsieurs Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.826
Authors: John Madar; Charles C Roehr; Sean Ainsworth; Hege Ersda; Colin Morley; Mario Rüdiger; Christiane Skåre; Tomasz Szczapa; Arjan Te Pas; Daniele Trevisanuto; Berndt Urlesberger; Dominic Wilkinson; Jonathan P Wyllie Journal: Notf Rett Med Date: 2021-06-02 Impact factor: 0.892
Authors: Keith Couper; Tom Quinn; Ranjit Lall; Anne Devrell; Barry Orriss; Kate Seers; Joyce Yeung; Gavin D Perkins Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2018-08-30 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: David Yamane; Patrick McCarville; Natalie Sullivan; Evan Kuhl; Carolyn Robin Lanam; Christopher Payette; Anahita Rahimi-Saber; Jennifer Rabjohns; Andrew D Sparks; Keith Boniface; Aaran Drake Journal: West J Emerg Med Date: 2020-10-20