Linda L Brown1, Yiqun Lin2, Nancy M Tofil3, Frank Overly4, Jonathan P Duff5, Farhan Bhanji6, Vinay M Nadkarni7, Elizabeth A Hunt8, Alexis Bragg9, David Kessler10, Ilana Bank11, Adam Cheng12. 1. Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Hasbro Children's Hospital, Providence, RI, 02903, United States. Electronic address: lbrown8@lifespan.org. 2. KidSIM-ASPIRE Simulation Research Program, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary, Canada. Electronic address: jeffylin@hotmail.com. 3. University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL, UAB Pediatric Simulation Center at Children's of Alabama, United States. Electronic address: ntofil@peds.uab.edu. 4. Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Department of Pediatrics and Emergency Medicine, Hasbro Children's Hospital, Providence, RI, 02903, United States. Electronic address: foverly@lifespan.org. 5. Stollery Children's Hospital, University of Alberta, Canada. Electronic address: jon.duff@albertahealthservices.ca. 6. Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University, Canada. Electronic address: farhan.bhanji@mcgill.ca. 7. The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: nadkarni@email.chop.edu. 8. Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, United States. Electronic address: ehunt@jhmi.edu. 9. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, University of California Los Angeles, United States. Electronic address: ebragg@chla.usc.edu. 10. Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, United States. Electronic address: dk2592@cumc.columbia.edu. 11. Montreal Children's Hospital, McGill University, Canada. Electronic address: ilana.bank@mail.mcgill.ca. 12. KidSIM-ASPIRE Simulation Research Program, Alberta Children's Hospital, University of Calgary, Canada. Electronic address: chenger@me.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the differences in workload between team leaders and CPR providers during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest, to evaluate the impact of a CPR feedback device on provider workload, and to describe the association between provider workload and the quality of CPR. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing CPR quality in teams with and without use of a real-time visual CPR feedback device [1]. Healthcare providers (team leaders and CPR providers) completed the NASA Task Load Index survey after participating in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. The effect of provider roles and real-time feedback on workload were compared with independent t-tests. RESULTS: Team leaders reported higher levels of mental demand, temporal demand, performance-related workload and frustration, while CPR providers reported comparatively higher physical workload. CPR providers reported significantly higher average workload (control 58.5 vs. feedback 62.3; p = 0.035) with real-time feedback provided compared to the group without feedback. Providers with high workloads (average score >60) had an increased percentage of time with guideline-compliant CPR depth versus those with low workloads (average score <60) (p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers reported high workloads during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. Physical and mental workloads differed based on provider role. CPR providers using a CPR feedback device reported increased average workloads. The quality of CPR improved with higher reported physical workloads.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to describe the differences in workload between team leaders and CPR providers during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest, to evaluate the impact of a CPR feedback device on provider workload, and to describe the association between provider workload and the quality of CPR. METHODS: We conducted secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing CPR quality in teams with and without use of a real-time visual CPR feedback device [1]. Healthcare providers (team leaders and CPR providers) completed the NASA Task Load Index survey after participating in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. The effect of provider roles and real-time feedback on workload were compared with independent t-tests. RESULTS: Team leaders reported higher levels of mental demand, temporal demand, performance-related workload and frustration, while CPR providers reported comparatively higher physical workload. CPR providers reported significantly higher average workload (control 58.5 vs. feedback 62.3; p = 0.035) with real-time feedback provided compared to the group without feedback. Providers with high workloads (average score >60) had an increased percentage of time with guideline-compliant CPR depth versus those with low workloads (average score <60) (p = 0.034). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare providers reported high workloads during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. Physical and mental workloads differed based on provider role. CPR providers using a CPR feedback device reported increased average workloads. The quality of CPR improved with higher reported physical workloads.
Authors: Justin M Jeffers; Blake A Schreurs; James L Dean; Brandon Scott; Therese Canares; Sean Tackett; Brittany Smith; Emma Billings; Veena Billioux; Harshini D Sampathkumar; Keith Kleinman Journal: Resusc Plus Date: 2022-07-09
Authors: Daniel S Lemke; Ann L Young; Sharon K Won; Marideth C Rus; Nadia N Villareal; Elizabeth A Camp; Cara Doughty Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2021-08-01
Authors: Ann L Young; Cara B Doughty; Kaitlin C Williamson; Sharon K Won; Marideth C Rus; Nadia N Villarreal; Elizabeth A Camp; Daniel S Lemke Journal: BMJ Simul Technol Enhanc Learn Date: 2020-12-02
Authors: Michael Wagner; Peter Gröpel; Felix Eibensteiner; Lisa Kessler; Katharina Bibl; Isabel T Gross; Angelika Berger; Francesco S Cardona Journal: Pediatr Res Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 3.953
Authors: Francesco Corazza; Deborah Snijders; Marta Arpone; Valentina Stritoni; Francesco Martinolli; Marco Daverio; Maria Giulia Losi; Luca Soldi; Francesco Tesauri; Liviana Da Dalt; Silvia Bressan Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2020-10-01 Impact factor: 4.773