Literature DB >> 28259482

Accuracy of Postresuscitation Team Debriefings in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

Paul C Mullan1, Niall H Cochrane2, James M Chamberlain3, Randall S Burd4, Fawn D Brown5, Lauren E Zinns6, Kristen M Crandall5, Karen J O'Connell3.   

Abstract

STUDY
OBJECTIVE: Guideline committees recommend postresuscitation debriefings to improve performance. "Hot" postresuscitation debriefings occur immediately after the event and rely on team recall. We assessed the ability of resuscitation teams to recall their performance in team-based, hot debriefings in a pediatric emergency department (ED), using video review as the criterion standard. We hypothesized that debriefing accuracy will improve during the course of the study.
METHODS: Resuscitation physician and nurse leaders cofacilitated debriefings after ED resuscitations involving cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or intubation. Debriefing teams recorded their self-assessments of clinical performance measures with standardized debriefing forms. The debriefing form data were compared with actual performance measured by video review at 2 pediatric EDs over 22 months. CPR performance measures included time to automated external defibrillator pad placement, epinephrine administration timing, and compression pause timing. Intubation measures included occurrences of oxygen desaturation, number of intubation attempts, and use of end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring.
RESULTS: We analyzed 100 resuscitations (14 cardiac arrests, 22 cardiac arrests with intubation, and 64 intubations). The accuracy of debriefing answers was 87%, increasing from 83% to 91% between the first and second halves of the study period (7.7% difference; 95% confidence interval 0.2% to 15%). Debriefings that acknowledged an error in certain performance measures (ie, automated external defibrillator pad placement delay, multiple intubation attempts, and occurrence of oxygen desaturation) had significantly worse performance in those specific measures on video review.
CONCLUSION: Teams in postresuscitation debriefings had a higher degree of debriefing answer accuracy in the final 50 debriefings than in the first 50. Teams also distinguished various degrees of resuscitation performance.
Copyright © 2017 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28259482     DOI: 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2017.01.034

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Emerg Med        ISSN: 0196-0644            Impact factor:   5.721


  6 in total

1.  Evolution of clinical event debriefs in a quaternary pediatric emergency department after implementation of a debriefing tool.

Authors:  Jamie Chu; Nawara Alawa; Esther M Sampayo; Cara Doughty; Elizabeth Camp; T Bram Welch-Horan
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2021-08-01

2.  Applications of Postresuscitation Debriefing Frameworks in Emergency Settings: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Stephen J Hale; Melissa J Parker; Cynthia Cupido; April J Kam
Journal:  AEM Educ Train       Date:  2020-04-06

3.  "A debriefer must be neutral" and other debriefing myths: a systemic inquiry-based qualitative study of taken-for-granted beliefs about clinical post-event debriefing.

Authors:  Julia Carolin Seelandt; Katie Walker; Michaela Kolbe
Journal:  Adv Simul (Lond)       Date:  2021-03-04

4.  Implementation of a Rapid Post-Code Debrief Quality Improvement Project in a Community Emergency Department Setting.

Authors:  Tomasz Przednowek; Camille Stacey; Katherine Baird; Robert Nolan; Jesse Kellar; William D Corser
Journal:  Spartan Med Res J       Date:  2021-04-13

Review 5.  [Education for resuscitation].

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

Review 6.  Filming for auditing of real-life emergency teams: a systematic review.

Authors:  Lise Brogaard; Niels Uldbjerg
Journal:  BMJ Open Qual       Date:  2019-12-06
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.