RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Clinical decision-making is based on objective and subjective criteria, including healthcare workers impressions and feelings. This research examines the perception and implications of a 'bad feeling' experienced by healthcare professionals, focusing on its prevalence and characteristics. METHODS: A cross-sectional paper-based survey was conducted from January to July 2023 at the University Medicine Greifswald and the hospital Sömmerda involving physicians, nurses, medical students and trainees from various specialties. With ethics committee approval, participants were recruited and surveyed at regular clinical events. Data analysis was performed using SPSS® Statistics. The manuscript was written using the Strobe checklist. RESULTS: Out of 250 questionnaires distributed, 217 were valid for analysis after a 94.9% return rate and subsequent exclusions. Sixty-five per cent of respondents experience the 'bad feeling' occasionally to frequently. There was a significant positive correlation between the frequency of 'bad feeling' and work experience. The predominant cause of this feeling was identified as intuition, reported by 79.8% of participants, with 80% finding it often helpful in their clinical judgement. Notably, in 16.1% of cases, the 'bad feeling' escalated in the further clinical course into an actual emergency. Furthermore, 60% of respondents indicated that this feeling occasionally or often serves as an early indicator of a potential, yet unrecognised, emergency in patient care. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the relevance of clinical experience to decision-making. As an expression of this, there is a correlation between the frequency of a 'bad feeling' and the number of years of experience. It is recommended that the 'bad feeling' be deliberately acknowledged and reinforced as an early warning signal for emergency situations, given its significant implications for patient safety. Future initiatives could include advanced training and research, as well as tools such as pocket maps, to better equip healthcare professionals in responding to this intuition.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Telephone-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (T-CPR) significantly increases rate of bystander resuscitation and improves patient outcomes after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA). Nevertheless, securing correct execution of instructions remains a difficulty. ERC Guidelines 2021 recommend standardised instructions with continuous evaluation. Yet, there are no explicit recommendations on a standardised wording of T-CPR in the German language. We investigated, whether a modified wording regarding check for breathing in a German T-CPR protocol improved performance of T-CPR. METHODS: A simulation study with 48 OHCA scenarios was conducted. In a non-randomised trial study lay rescuers were instructed using the real-life-CPR protocol of the regional dispatch centre and as the intervention a modified T-CPR protocol, including specific check for breathing (head tilt-chin lift instructions). Resuscitation parameters were assessed with a manikin and video recordings. RESULTS: Check for breathing was performed by 64.3% (n = 14) of the lay rescuers with original wording and by 92.6% (n = 27) in the group with modified wording (p = 0.035). In the original wording group the head tilt-chin manoeuvre was executed by 0.0% of the lay rescuers compared to 70.3% in the group with modified wording (p < 0.001). The average duration of check for breathing was 1 ± 1 s in the original wording group and 4 ± 2 s in the group with modified wording (p < 0.001). Other instructions (e.g. check for consciousness and removal of clothing) were well performed and did not differ significantly between groups. Quality of chest compression did not differ significantly between groups, with the exception of mean chest compression depth, which was slightly deeper in the modified wording group. CONCLUSION: Correct check for breathing seems to be a problem for lay rescuers, which can be decreased by describing the assessment in more detail. Hence, T-CPR protocols should provide standardised explicit instructions on how to perform airway assessment. Each protocol should be evaluated for practicability.