Search

Objectives: To compare the effectiveness of cognitive aid use during resuscitation with no use of cognitive aids on cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality and performance., Methods: This systematic review followed the PICOST format. All randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies evaluating cognitive aid use during (simulated) resuscitation were included in any setting. Unpublished studies were excluded. We did not include studies that reported cognitive aid use during training for resuscitation alone. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until July 2019 (updated August 2022, November 2023, and 23 April 2024). We did not search trial registries. Title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and certainty of evidence (using GRADE) were performed by two researchers. PRISMA reporting standards were followed, and registration (PROSPERO CRD42020159162, version 19 July 2022) was performed. No funding has been obtained., Results: The literature search identified 5029 citations. After removing 512 duplicates, reviewing the titles and abstracts of the remaining articles yielded 103 articles for full-text review. Hand-searching identified 3 more studies for full-text review. Of these, 29 studies were included in the final analysis. No clinical studies involving patients were identified. The review was limited to indirect evidence from simulation studies only. The results are presented in five different populations: healthcare professionals managing simulated resuscitations in neonates, children, adult advanced life support, and other emergencies; as well as lay providers managing resuscitations. Main outcomes were adherence to protocol or process, adherence to protocol or process assessed by performance score, CPR performance and retention, and feasibility of chatbot guidance. The risk of bias assessment ranged from low to high. Studies in neonatal, paediatric and adult life support delivered by healthcare professionals showed benefits of using cognitive aids, however, some studies evaluating resuscitations by lay providers reported undesirable effects. The performance of a meta -analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. The certainty of evidence was rated as moderate to very low due to serious indirectness, (very) serious risk of bias, serious inconsistency and (very) serious imprecision., Conclusion: Because of the very low certainty evidence from simulation studies, we suggest that cognitive aids should be used by healthcare professionals during resuscitation. In contrast, we do not suggest use of cognitive aids for lay providers, based on low certainty evidence., Competing Interests: The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: SN, KN, CAG, EK, and RG are members of the ILCOR EIT Task Force (RG is chair). RG is ERC Director of Guidelines and ILCOR, RG is Editorial Board member of Resuscitation Plus., (© 2024 The Author(s).)

Introduction: Outcomes from pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest depend on the treatment provided as well as resuscitation team performance. Our study aimed to identify errors occurring in this clinical context and develop an analytical framework to classify them. This analytical framework provided a better understanding of team performance, leading to improved patient outcomes., Methods: We analyzed 25 video recordings of pediatric cardiac arrest simulations from the pediatric intensive care unit at the Alberta Children's Hospital. We conducted a qualitative-dominant crossover mixed method analysis to produce a broad understanding of the etiology of errors. Using qualitative framework analysis, we identified and qualitatively described errors and transformed the data coded into quantitative data to determine the frequency of errors., Results: We identified 546 errors/error-related actions and behaviors and 25 near misses. The errors were coded into 21 codes that were organized into 5 main themes. Clinical task-related errors accounted for most errors (41.9%), followed by planning, and executing task-related errors (22.3%), distraction-related errors (18.7%), communication-related errors (10.1%), and knowledge/training-related errors (7%)., Conclusions: This novel analytical framework can robustly identify, classify, and describe the root causes of errors within this complex clinical context. Future validation of this classification of errors and error-related actions and behaviors on larger samples of resuscitations from various contexts will allow for a better understanding of how errors can be mitigated to improve patient outcomes., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Simulation in Healthcare.)

Purpose: The acquisition and interpretation of clinical results during resuscitations is common; however, this can delay critical clinical tasks, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. This study aims to determine the impact of clinical result acquisition and interpretation by the team leader on critical task completion during simulated pediatric cardiac arrest before and after team training., Methods: This is a secondary data analysis of video-recorded simulated resuscitation scenarios conducted during Teams4Kids (T4K) study (June 2011-January 2015); scenarios included cardiac arrest before and after team training. The scenario included either a scripted paper or a phone call delivery of results concurrently with a clinical transition to pulseless ventricular tachycardia. Descriptive statistics and non-parametric tests were used to compare team performance before and after training., Results: Performance from 40 teams was analyzed. Although the time taken to initiate CPR and defibrillation varied depending on the type of interruption and whether the scenario was before or after team training, these findings were not significantly associated with the leader's behaviour [Kruskal-Wallis test (p > 0.05)]. An exact McNemar's test determined no statistically significant difference in the proportion of leaders involved or not in interpreting results between and after the training (exact p value = 0.096)., Conclusions: Team training was successful in reducing time to perform key clinical tasks. Although team training modified the way leaders behaved toward the results, this behaviour change did not impact the time taken to start CPR or defibrillate. Further understanding the elements that influence time to critical clinical tasks provides guidance in designing future simulated educational activities, subsequently improving clinical team performance and patient outcomes., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Team SA involves a common perspective between two or more individuals regarding current environmental events, their meaning, and projected future status. Team SA has been theorized to be important for resuscitation team effectiveness. Accordingly, multidimensional frameworks of observable behaviors relevant to resuscitation teams are needed to understand more deeply the nature of team SA, its implications for team effectiveness, and whether it can be trained. A seven-dimension team resuscitation SA framework was developed following a literature review and consensus process using a modified Delphi approach with a group of content experts. We applied a pre-post design within a day-long team training program involving four video-recorded simulated resuscitation events and 42 teams across Canada. The first and fourth events represented "pre" and "post" training events, respectively. Teams were scored on SA five times within each 15-minute event. Distractions were introduced to investigate whether SA scores would be affected. The current study provides initial construct validity evidence for a new measure of SA and explicates SA's role in resuscitation teams.

Background: Despite sparse pediatric data on effectiveness, the majority of critically ill children receive medications to prevent gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding. Stress ulcer prophylaxis may have unintended consequences-increasing the risk of nosocomial infections-which may be more serious and common than the bleeding which these drugs are prescribed to prevent. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric critical care are exceptionally challenging to complete, thus a rigorous pilot RCT is crucial. The objective of this pilot RCT is to assess the feasibility of a large multicentre RCT of stress ulcer prophylaxis with pantoprazole to prevent upper GI bleeding vs. placebo., Methods: A multi-centre blinded pilot RCT of 120 children in six Canadian PICUs. Children expected to require mechanical ventilation for more than 48 h will be randomized to receive intravenous pantoprazole 1 mg/kg or identical placebo once daily until they no longer need mechanical ventilation. We have four feasibility outcomes and will consider the trial successful if we achieve:Effective screening: If >80% of eligible patients are approached for consent.Timely enrollment: if >80% of participants receive their first dose of the assigned study drug within 1 day of becoming eligible.Participant accrual: If the average monthly enrolment is two or more participants per centre per month.Protocol adherence: if >90% of doses are administered according to the protocol., Discussion: There are many uncertainties about the risks and benefits of stress ulcer prophylaxis. In an era of widespread use-where clinicians prescribe prophylaxis to the more severely ill-a large, rigorous RCT is required. A trial to determine if a strategy of withholding stress ulcer prophylaxis is not inferior to a strategy of routine stress ulcer prophylaxis will be challenging. A carefully designed and implemented pilot trial is essential., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT02929563 (Registered October 3, 2016).