Christopher James Groombridge1, Yesul Kim2, Amit Maini3, De Villiers Smit3, Mark Christopher Fitzgerald2. 1. National Trauma Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Emergency & Trauma Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Monash University, Central Clinical School, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: cgroombridge@doctors.org.uk. 2. National Trauma Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Monash University, Central Clinical School, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Australia. 3. National Trauma Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia; Emergency & Trauma Centre, The Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Monash University, Central Clinical School, The Alfred Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: During resuscitation decisions are made frequently and based on limited information in a stressful environment. AIM: This systematic review aimed to identify human factors affecting decision-making in challenging or stressful situations in resuscitation. The secondary aim was to identify methods of improving decision-making performance under stress. METHODS: The databases PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from their commencement to the 13th of April 2019. MeSH terms and key words were combined (Stress* OR "human factor") AND Decision. Articles were included if they involved decision makers in medicine where decisions were made under challenging circumstances, with a comparator group and an outcome measure relating to change in decision-making performance. RESULTS: 22,368 records in total were initially identified, from which 82 full text studies were reviewed and 16 finally included. The included studies ranged from 1995 to 2018 and included a total of 570 participants. The studies were conducted in several different countries and settings, with participants of varying experience and backgrounds. Of the 16 studies, 5 were randomised controlled trials, 3 of which were deemed to have a high risk of bias. The stressors identified were (i) illness severity (ii) socio-evaluative, (iii) noise, (iv) fatigue. The mitigators identified were (i) cognitive aids including checklists, (ii) stress management training and (iii) meditation. CONCLUSIONS: Human factors contributing to decision-making during resuscitation are identified and can be mitigated by tailored stress training and cognitive aids. Understanding these factors may have implications for clinician education and the development of decision-support tools.
BACKGROUND: During resuscitation decisions are made frequently and based on limited information in a stressful environment. AIM: This systematic review aimed to identify human factors affecting decision-making in challenging or stressful situations in resuscitation. The secondary aim was to identify methods of improving decision-making performance under stress. METHODS: The databases PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library were searched from their commencement to the 13th of April 2019. MeSH terms and key words were combined (Stress* OR "human factor") AND Decision. Articles were included if they involved decision makers in medicine where decisions were made under challenging circumstances, with a comparator group and an outcome measure relating to change in decision-making performance. RESULTS: 22,368 records in total were initially identified, from which 82 full text studies were reviewed and 16 finally included. The included studies ranged from 1995 to 2018 and included a total of 570 participants. The studies were conducted in several different countries and settings, with participants of varying experience and backgrounds. Of the 16 studies, 5 were randomised controlled trials, 3 of which were deemed to have a high risk of bias. The stressors identified were (i) illness severity (ii) socio-evaluative, (iii) noise, (iv) fatigue. The mitigators identified were (i) cognitive aids including checklists, (ii) stress management training and (iii) meditation. CONCLUSIONS:Human factors contributing to decision-making during resuscitation are identified and can be mitigated by tailored stress training and cognitive aids. Understanding these factors may have implications for clinician education and the development of decision-support tools.
Authors: Justyna Swol; Daniel Brodie; Anne Willers; Bishoy Zakhary; Joseph Belezzo; Zachary Shinar; Scott D Weingart; Jonathan W Haft; Roberto Lorusso; Giles J Peek Journal: Artif Organs Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 2.663
Authors: Femke S Dijkstra; Peter G Renden; Martijn Meeter; Linda J Schoonmade; Ralf Krage; Hans van Schuppen; Anne de la Croix Journal: Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Yesul Kim; Christopher Groombridge; Lorena Romero; Steven Clare; Mark Christopher Fitzgerald Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-12-08 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Britt Laugesen; Maja Thomsen Albrechtsen; Mette Grønkjær; Kathrine Hoffmann Kusk; Marie Germund Nielsen; Lone Jørgensen; Birgith Pedersen; Birgitte Lerbæk; Helle Haslund-Thomsen; Charlotte Brun Thorup; Sara Jacobsen; Karin Bundgaard; Siri Lygum Voldbjerg Journal: Glob Qual Nurs Res Date: 2022-07-07
Authors: Oscar E C van Maarseveen; Wietske H W Ham; Roel L N Huijsmans; Rianne G F Dolmans; Luke P H Leenen Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2020-07-02 Impact factor: 3.693