Kasper Glerup Lauridsen1, Ichiro Watanabe2, Bo Løfgren3, Adam Cheng4, Jordan Duval-Arnould5, Elizabeth A Hunt6, Grace L Good2, Dana Niles7, Robert A Berg7, Akira Nishisaki8, Vinay M Nadkarni8. 1. Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Internal Medicine, Randers Regional Hospital, Denmark; Center for Simulation, Advanced Education and Innovation, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: lauridsekg@email.chop.edu. 2. Center for Simulation, Advanced Education and Innovation, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA. 3. Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Internal Medicine, Randers Regional Hospital, Denmark; Department of Cardiology, Aarhus University Hospital, USA. 4. Department of Pediatrics, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary. 5. Simulation Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, USA. 6. Simulation Center, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, USA; Division of Health Informatics, Johns Hopkins University Hospital, Johns Hopkins Pediatric Hospital, USA; Department of Pediatrics, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. 7. Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA. 8. Center for Simulation, Advanced Education and Innovation, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA.
Abstract
AIM: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events. METHODS: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales. RESULTS: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15-30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98% (80%,100%). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.
RCT Entities:
AIM: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events. METHODS: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales. RESULTS: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15-30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98% (80%,100%). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.
Authors: David Peran; Roman Sykora; Jana Vidunova; Ivana Krsova; Jaroslav Pekara; Metodej Renza; Nikola Brizgalova; Patrik Ch Cmorej Journal: BMC Emerg Med Date: 2022-05-13
Authors: Lorena Gutiérrez-Puertas; Verónica V Márquez-Hernández; Vanesa Gutiérrez-Puertas; Mª Carmen Rodríguez-García; Alba García-Viola; Gabriel Aguilera-Manrique Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-01-31 Impact factor: 3.390
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