Search

Introduction Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is among the most important skills in clinical practice. Errors can happen here, just like everywhere, and potentially have severe consequences. Two common error handling strategies known from practice are Error Management (EM) and Error Avoidance (EA). However, its effects on medical performance outcomes remain unclear. This study aimed to examine the role of error framing in basic life support (BLS) training for future healthcare professionals.Materials and Methods In an equivalence trial (N = 430), first-year medical, dentistry, physiotherapy, and midwifery students underwent BLS training. In the three study arms, participants received either (1) instructions framing errors positively (EM), (2) instructions framing errors to be avoided (EA), or (3) no further instructions (Control). CPR performance was assessed using a resuscitation manikin measuring compression depth (CD) and compression rate (CR). The self-confidence ratings were assessed using a questionnaire. Equivalence margins for the outcome parameters and sample size calculations were based on previous standard BLS studies, using two-sided 95% confidence intervals to determine significance of equivalence.Results The results regarding CD revealed equivalence with a trend toward superiority of EM over EA (proportional difference 23.3%-points; 95% CI 11.4%–34.2%) and EM over control (proportional difference 23.4%-points; 95% CI 11.5%–34.2%.) and significant equivalence of EA and control (proportional difference 0.1%-points; 95% CI −11.6%–11.7%). Significant equivalence was determined for all study arms with respect to CR and self-confidence.Conclusion Our study revealed that EM was not detrimental to learners’ CPR performance. Given existing research on long-term beneficial effects of EM on patient safety, coupled with the proven equivalence of EM and EA concerning short-term performance, we argue that EM is a promising approach for future medical education purposes. Raising awareness of error framing and teaching error-handling strategies is expected to benefit ongoing safety management efforts in medical education and beyond.

Abstract Background Providing optimal care for critically ill patients is an extremely important but also highly demanding task, both emotionally and physically. The “ICU Support” team meeting concept aims to support intensive care unit (ICU) teams by promoting interprofessional communication, peer support, and patient safety by providing a structure for daily team meetings. This protocol describes a study to explore the effectiveness of “ICU Support” for patient- and staff-centered outcomes. Methods ICU Support will be implemented at nine university hospitals located in Germany, following a two-arm randomized parallel group design with an intervention and a control condition and three data collection periods. In the intervention arm, leading ICU personnel (physicians and nurses) will be trained in ICU Support and implement the ICU Support elements into the daily work routine of their units upon completion of data collection period T0 (baseline). In the control arm, ICU Support will not be implemented until the completion of the data collection period T1 (1 month after study start). Until then, the regular daily schedule of the ICU teams will be maintained. The final data collection period (T2) will take place 4 months after the start of the study. Primary outcomes include the number of intensive care complications per patient during their ICU stay during T1 and the sick-related absence of ICU staff during T1. Secondary outcomes include, among others, the average severity of intensive care complications per patient and employee self-reported data regarding their teamwork and patient safety behaviors. Discussion The need for healthy and well-trained ICU staff is omnipresent; thus, structured and evidence-based interventions aimed at supporting ICU teams and facilitating patient safety are required. This multicenter study aims to explore the effectiveness of ICU Support for patient- and staff-centered outcomes. The insights derived from this study have the potential to significantly improve ICU patient safety, staff communication, and connectedness and decrease sickness-related expenses and social costs associated with high work demands among ICU staff. Trial registration German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00028642 . Registered on 4 April 2022.

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) in the domain of healthcare is increasing in prominence. Acceptance is an indispensable prerequisite for the widespread implementation of AI. The aim of this integrative review is to explore barriers and facilitators influencing healthcare professionals’ acceptance of AI in the hospital setting. Forty-two articles met the inclusion criteria for this review. Pertinent elements to the study such as the type of AI, factors influencing acceptance, and the participants’ profession were extracted from the included studies, and the studies were appraised for their quality. The data extraction and results were presented according to the Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) model. The included studies revealed a variety of facilitating and hindering factors for AI acceptance in the hospital setting. Clinical decision support systems (CDSS) were the AI form included in most studies (n = 21). Heterogeneous results with regard to the perceptions of the effects of AI on error occurrence, alert sensitivity and timely resources were reported. In contrast, fear of a loss of (professional) autonomy and difficulties in integrating AI into clinical workflows were unanimously reported to be hindering factors. On the other hand, training for the use of AI facilitated acceptance. Heterogeneous results may be explained by differences in the application and functioning of the different AI systems as well as inter-professional and interdisciplinary disparities. To conclude, in order to facilitate acceptance of AI among healthcare professionals it is advisable to integrate end-users in the early stages of AI development as well as to offer needs-adjusted training for the use of AI in healthcare and providing adequate infrastructure.

IntroductionPractical skills training is an essential part of medical education. An important example is the training of Basic Life Support (BLS) skills, which are key to improve patient outcomes in life-threatening situations. However, despite practical training, BLS performance is often sub-optimal even among healthcare professionals and medical students. Finding more effective training methods is therefore of high importance. A promising method to enhance learning outcomes is reflective practice. The goal of the present study was to evaluate whether a short reflective practice intervention following standard BLS training (Peyton's 4-step approach) improves BLS training outcomes, reflected in higher BLS performance and higher self-confidence to perform BLS.Method287 first-year medical students were randomly assigned to one of two BLS training conditions: 1) standard BLS training (ST), 2) ST followed by a 15-minute reflective practice exercise. Outcome parameters included objective BLS performance data assessed by a resuscitation manikin, and students' self-reported confidence in their BLS skills. Outcomes were assessed directly after the training (T0) and re-assessed one week later (T1). A two-way mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to examine the effect of the intervention on BLS performance and self-reported confidence. Significance was determined by two-sided 95% confidence intervals.ResultsThe intervention group performed significantly more effective compressions at T1 and began significantly faster with performing their first chest compression at T0 and T1, in comparison to the control group. No significant differences between study groups regarding their self-reported confidence to perform BLS were observed.ConclusionThis research shows that standard BLS training accompanied with a simple, cost-effective reflective practice exercise can improve learners' BLS skill acquisition and retention. This shows that reflective practice has the potential to enhance practical skills training in medicine; yet, more empirical studies are needed to examine its broader applicability.

BackgroundThe status of Safety Management is highly relevant to evaluate an organization's ability to deal with unexpected events or errors, especially in times of crisis. However, it remains unclear to what extent Safety Management was developed and sufficiently implemented within the healthcare system during the COVID-19 pandemic. Providing insights of potential for improvement is expected to be directional for ongoing Safety Management efforts, in times of crisis and beyond.MethodA nationwide survey study was conducted among healthcare professionals and auxiliary staff on German Intensive Care Units (ICUs) evaluating their experiences during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Error Management and Patient Safety Culture (PSC) measures served to operationalize Safety Management. Data were analyzed descriptively and by using quantitative content analysis (QCA).ResultsResults for n = 588 participants from 53 hospitals show that there is a gap between errors occurred, reported, documented, and addressed. QCA revealed that low quality of safety culture (27.8%) was the most mentioned reason for errors not being addressed. Overall, ratings of PSC ranged from 26.7 to 57.9% positive response with Staffing being the worst and Teamwork Within Units being the best rated dimension. While assessments showed a similar pattern, medical staff rated PSC on ICUs more positively in comparison to nursing staff.ConclusionThe status-analysis of Safety Management in times of crisis revealed relevant potential for improvement. Human Factor plays a crucial role in the occurrence and the way errors are dealt with on ICUs, but systemic factors should not be underestimated. Further intensified efforts specifically in the fields of staffing and error reporting, documentation and communication are needed to improve Safety Management on ICUs. These findings might also be applicable across nations and sectors beyond the medical field.

IntroductionA high-quality education of future physicians is essential. Modern approaches interlock the acquisition of theoretical knowledge and practical skills in a spiral curriculum, leading to a mutual learning benefit for knowledge and application. This model was challenged by the elimination of hands-on trainings during the pandemic, which were often replaced by purely digital teaching models. Given the holistic nature of the spiral curriculum, we assumed that a purely digital model would have an impact on knowledge acquisition due to missing hands-on learning opportunities. The aim of the study was to investigate, using an emergency seminar as an example, whether purely digital training leads to a difference in theoretical knowledge compared to the traditional model.Materials and methodsStudy design: We used a two-groups design comparing a sample of medical students taught in 2020 with a purely digital teaching format (DF; n = 152) with a historical control group taught with a traditional format (TF; n = 1060). Subject of investigation was a seminar on emergency medicine, taking place in the 4th year. Outcome parameters: The primary outcome parameter was the students' acquired knowledge, measured by the score achieved in the final exams. Students' evaluation of the seminar was used as a secondary outcome parameter.ResultsStudents in the DF group scored significantly lower than students in the TF group in the final exams. Students in the DF group rated the course significantly worse than students in the TF group.DiscussionThe study results illustrate that purely digital education leads to inferior knowledge acquisition compared to the traditional spiral curriculum. A possible explanation may lie in a deeper processing of the information (e.g., understanding the information by experience and analysis) and accordingly a better memory recall. Moreover, the students' critical appraisal of the DF may have had an unfavorable effect on learning performance. Moderating factors may be lower learning motivation or the “zoom fatigue” effect.ConclusionThese study results clearly illustrate the importance of hands-on teaching for knowledge acquisition. The interlocking of theoretical knowledge and practical skills, as ensured by the spiral curriculum, is essential.

BackgroundSustaining Basic Life Support (BLS) training during the COVID-19 pandemic bears substantial challenges. The limited availability of highly qualified instructors and tight economic conditions complicates the delivery of these life-saving trainings. Consequently, innovative and resource-efficient approaches are needed to minimize or eliminate contagion while maintaining high training standards and managing learner anxiety related to infection risk.MethodsIn a non-inferiority trial 346 first-year medical, dentistry, and physiotherapy students underwent BLS training at AIXTRA—Competence Center for Training and Patient Safety at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen. Our objectives were (1) to examine whether peer feedback BLS training supported by tele-instructors matches the learning performance of standard instructor-guided BLS training for laypersons; and (2) to minimize infection risk during BLS training. Therefore, in a parallel group design, we compared arm (1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) BLS training (Historical control group of 2019) with arm (2) a Tele-Instructor Supported Peer-Feedback (TPF) BLS training (Intervention group of 2020). Both study arms were based on Peyton's 4-step approach. Before and after each training session, objective data for BLS performance (compression depth and rate) were recorded using a resuscitation manikin. We also assessed overall BLS performance via standardized instructor evaluation and student self-reports of confidence via questionnaire. Non-inferiority margins for the outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with SIF. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority.ResultsThe results confirmed non-inferiority of TPF to SIF for all tested outcome parameters. A follow-up after 2 weeks found no confirmed COVID-19 infections among the participants.ConclusionTele-instructor supported peer feedback is a powerful alternative to in-person instructor feedback on BLS skills during a pandemic, where infection risk needs to be minimized while maximizing the quality of BLS skill learning.Trial registrationhttps://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID=DRKS00025199, Trial ID: DRKS00025199.

Background: Clinical handovers have been identified as high-risk situations for medical treatment errors. It has been shown that handover checklists lead to a reduced rate of medical errors and mortality. However, the influence of handover checklists on essential patient outcomes such as prevalence of sepsis, mortality, and length of hospitalization has not yet been investigated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT).Objectives: The aim of the present pilot study was to estimate the effect of two different handover checklists on the 48 h sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score and the feasibility of a respective clinical RCT.Methods: Outcome parameters and feasibility were investigated implementing and comparing an intervention with a control checklist.Design: Single center two-armed cluster randomized prospective crossover pilot study.Setting: The study took place over three 1-month periods in an intensive care unit (ICU) setting at the University Hospital Aachen.Patients/Participants: Data from 1,882 patients on seven ICU wards were assessed, of which 1,038 were included in the analysis.Intervention: A digital standardized handover checklist (ISBAR3) was compared to a control checklist (VICUR).Main Outcome Measures: Primary outcome was the 2nd 24 h time window sepsis-related organ failure assessment (SOFA) score. Secondary outcomes were SOFA scores on the 3rd and 5th 24 h time window, mortality, reuptake, and length of stay; handover duration, degree of satisfaction, and compliance as feasibility-related outcomes.Results: Different sepsis scores were observed only for the 1st 24 h time window after admission to the ICU, with higher values for ISBAR3. With respect to the patient-centered outcomes, both checklists achieved similar results. Average handover duration was shorter for VICUR, whereas satisfaction and compliance were higher for ISBAR3. However, overall compliance was low (25.4% for ISBAR3 and 15.8% for VICUR).Conclusions: Based on the results, a stratified randomization procedure is recommended for following RCTs, in which medical treatment errors should also be investigated as an additional variable. The use of control checklists is discouraged due to lower acceptance and compliance among healthcare practitioners. Measures should be undertaken to increase compliance with the use of checklists. Clinical outcome parameters should be carefully selected.Trial Registration:ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier [NCT03117088]. Registered April 14, 2017.

IntroductionTraining Basic Life Support saves lives. However, current BLS training approaches are time-consuming and costly. Alternative cost-efficient and effective training methods are highly needed. The present study evaluated whether a video-feedback supported peer-guided Basic Life Support training approach achieves similar practical performance as a standard instructor-guided training in laypersons.MethodsIn a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial, 288 first-year medical students were randomized to two study arms with different Basic Life Support training methods: 1) Standard Instructor Feedback (SIF) or 2) a Peer Video Feedback (PVF). Outcome parameters were objective data for Basic Life Support performance (compression depth and rate) from a resuscitation manikin with recording software as well as overall Basic Life Support performance and subjective confidence. Non-inferiority margins (Δ) for these outcome parameters and sample size calculation were based on previous studies with Standard Instructor Feedback. Two-sided 95% confidence intervals were employed to determine significance of non-inferiority.ResultsResults confirmed non-inferiority of Peer Video Feedback to Standard Instructor Feedback for compression depth (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 2.9%; 95% CI: -8.2% to 14.1%; Δ = -19%), overall Basic Life Support performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = 6.7%; 95% CI: 0.0% to 14.3%; Δ = -27%) and subjective confidence for CPR performance (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.01; 95% CI: -0.18-0.17; Δ = -0.5) and emergency situations (proportion difference PVF-SIF = -0.02; 95% CI: -0.21-0.18; Δ = -0.5). Results for compression rate were inconclusive.DiscussionPeer Video Feedback achieves comparable results as standard instructor-based training methods. It is an easy-to-apply and cost-efficient alternative to standard Basic Life Support training methods. To improve performance with respect to compression rate, additional implementation of a metronome is recommended.

Abstract Background Training lay rescuers in Basic Life Support (BLS) is essential to improve bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) rates; in addition, simple methods are needed to provide feedback on CPR performance. This study evaluated whether a simple observational checklist can be used by BLS instructors to adequately measure the quality of BLS performance as an alternative to other feedback devices. Methods The BLS performances of 152 first-year medical students (aged 21.4 ± 3.9 years) were recorded on video, and objective data regarding the quality of the BLS were documented using Laerdal PC SkillReporting software. The performances were categorized according to quality. Ten BLS instructors observed the videos and completed a ten-point checklist based on the Cardiff Test of BLS (version 3.1) to assess the performances. The validity of the checklist was reviewed using interrater reliability as well as by comparing the checklist-based results with objective performance data. Results Matching the checklist-based evaluation with the objective performance data revealed high levels of agreement for very good (82%) and overall insufficient (75%) performances. Regarding the checklist-based evaluation, interrater reliability depended on the checklist item; thus, some items were more easily identified correctly than others. The highest and lowest levels of agreement were observed for the items “undressed torso” and “complete release between compressions” (mean joint-probability 95 and 67%, respectively). Conclusions The observational checklist adequately distinguished sufficient from insufficient BLS performances and offered an assessment of items not incorporated by SkillReporting software such as the initial assessment or undressing the chest. Although its usefulness was reduced for scaling intermediate performance groups, the checklist may be overall a useful rating tool in BLS-training if objective feedback devices are not available, for example, due to large groups of participants or limited training time.

BACKGROUND:Learning and training basic life support (BLS)-especially external chest compressions (ECC) within the BLS-algorithm-are essential resuscitation training for laypersons as well as for health care professionals. The objective of this study was to evaluate the influence of learning styles on the performance of BLS and to identify whether all types of learners are sufficiently addressed by Peyton's four-step approach for BLS training. METHODS:A study group of first-year medical students (n = 334) without previous medical knowledge was categorized according to learning styles using the German Lernstilinventar questionnaire based on Kolb's Learning Styles Inventory. Students' BLS performances were assessed before and after a four-step BLS training approach lasting 4 hours. Standardized BLS training was provided by an educational staff consisting of European Resuscitation Council-certified advanced life support providers and instructors. Pre- and post-intervention BLS performance was evaluated using a single-rescuer-scenario and standardized questionnaires (6-point-Likert-scales: 1 = completely agree, 6 = completely disagree). The recorded points of measurement were the time to start, depth, and frequency of ECC. RESULTS:The study population was categorized according to learning styles: diverging (5%, n = 16), assimilating (36%, n = 121), converging (41%, n = 138), and accommodating (18%, n = 59). Independent of learning styles, both male and female participants showed significant improvement in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performance. Based on the Kolb learning styles, no significant differences between the four groups were observed in compression depth, frequency, time to start CPR, or the checklist-based assessment within the baseline assessment. A significant sex effect on the difference between pre- and post-interventional assessment points was observed for mean compression depth and mean compression frequency. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this work show that the four-step-approach for BLS training addresses all types of learners independent of their learning styles and does not lead to significant differences in the performance of CPR.

BackgroundPerioperative anxiety is a major burden to patients undergoing surgeries with general anesthesia. ObjectiveThis study investigated whether a virtual operating room tour (VORT) before surgery can be used to ameliorate perioperative anxiety. MethodsWe employed a randomized parallel-group design with 2 study arms to compare VORT to the standard operation preparation procedure. The study included 84 patients. A validated inventory (state-trait operation anxiety-state) was used to assess perioperative state anxiety before (T1) and after (T2) surgery. In addition, trait operation anxiety was evaluated with an additional validated inventory (state-trait operation anxiety-trait). Moreover, user ratings on the usefulness of VORT were assessed with an evaluation questionnaire. Study arms were compared for perioperative state anxiety with two-tailed independent samples t tests. Subjective ratings were correlated with STOA-Trait values to investigate possible associations between perioperative anxiety with perceived usefulness. ResultsThere were no significant differences in perioperative state anxiety between VORT and standard operation preparation procedures before and after the surgery. Nonetheless, patients’ ratings of VORT overall were positive. The tour was perceived as useful and, therefore, showed acceptance for VR use. These ratings were unrelated to the degree of perioperative anxiety. ConclusionsThe subjective benefit of VORT could not be explained by a reduction of perioperative anxiety. Instead, VORT appears to serve the need for information and reduce uncertainty. In addition, VORT is perceived as beneficial regardless of the age of the patients. Considering this effect and the manageable organizational and financial effort toward implementation, the general use of VORT can be recommended. Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04579354; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04579354