| Literature DB >> 29680811 |
Fahad Alam1, Vicki R LeBlanc2,3, Alan Baxter4, Jordan Tarshis1, Dominique Piquette5, Yuqi Gu4, Caroline Filipowska6, Ashley Krywenky7, Nicole Kester-Greene6, Pierre Cardinal8, Shelly Au1, Sandy Lam4, Sylvain Boet2,3,4, Perioperative Anesthesia Clinical Trials Group9.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The proportion of older acute care physicians (ACPs) has been steadily increasing. Ageing is associated with physiological changes and prospective research investigating how such age-related physiological changes affect clinical performance, including crisis resource management (CRM) skills, is lacking. There is a gap in the literature on whether physician's age influences baseline CRM performance and also learning from simulation. We aim to investigate whether ageing is associated with baseline CRM skills of ACPs (emergency, critical care and anaesthesia) using simulated crisis scenarios and to assess whether ageing influences learning from simulation-based education. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a prospective cohort multicentre study recruiting ACPs from the Universities of Toronto and Ottawa, Canada. Each participant will manage an advanced cardiovascular life support crisis-simulated scenario (pretest) and then be debriefed on their CRM skills. They will then manage another simulated crisis scenario (immediate post-test). Three months after, participants will return to manage a third simulated crisis scenario (retention post-test). The relationship between biological age and chronological age will be assessed by measuring the participants CRM skills and their ability to learn from high-fidelity simulation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol was approved by Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre Research Ethics Board (REB Number 140-2015) and the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board (#20150173-01H). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal and at scientific meetings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02683447; Pre-results. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.Entities:
Keywords: adult anaesthesia
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29680811 PMCID: PMC5914762 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-020940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1An overview of study visits for participants consented and randomised to this study. ACLS, advanced cardiovascular life support; PEA, pulseless electrical activity.
Study visits
| Visit −1 | Visit 0 | Visit 1 | Visit 2 | Visit 3 | |
| Enrolment | |||||
| Eligibility screen |
| ||||
| Informed consent |
| ||||
| Allocation |
| ||||
| Interventions | |||||
| Demographic questionnaire |
| ||||
| Life expectancy questionnaire |
| ||||
| Orientation and non-crisis scenario |
| ||||
| Pretest |
| ||||
| Debrief * |
|
| |||
| Immediate post-test |
| ||||
| Retention post-test |
| ||||
| Assessments | |||||
| Ottawa Global Rating Scale† |
| ||||
| Advance cardiac life support checklist† |
| ||||
*To be performed by experienced debriefers.
†To be performed by two independent raters.