Prepackaged central line kits reduce procedural mistakes during central line insertion: a randomized controlled prospective trial.

BACKGROUND: Central line catheter insertion is a complex procedure with a high cognitive load for novices. Providing a prepackaged all-inclusive kit is a simple measure that may reduce the cognitive load. We assessed whether the use of prepackaged all-inclusive central line insertion kits reduces procedural mistakes during central line catheter insertion by novices. METHODS: Thirty final year medical students and recently qualified physicians were randomized into two equal groups. One group used a prepackaged all-inclusive kit and the other used a standard kit containing only the central vein catheter and all other separately packaged components provided in a materials cart. The procedure was videotaped and analyzed by two blinded raters using a checklist. Both groups performed central line catheter insertion on a manikin, assisted by nursing students. RESULTS: The prepackaged kit group outperformed the standard kit group in four of the five quality indicators: procedure duration (26:26 ± 3:50 min vs. 31:27 ± 5:57 min, p = .01); major technical mistakes (3.1 ± 1.4 vs. 4.8 ± 2.6, p = .03); minor technical mistakes (5.2 ± 1.7 vs. 8.0 ± 3.2, p = .01); and correct steps (83 ± 5% vs. 75 ± 11%, p = .02). The difference for breaches of aseptic technique (1.2 ± 0.8 vs. 3.0 ± 3.6, p = .06) was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Prepackaged all-inclusive kits for novices improved the procedure quality and saved staff time resources in a controlled simulation environment. Future studies are needed to address whether central line kits also improve patient safety in hospital settings.

Declined Organs for Liver Transplantation: A Right Decision or a Missed Opportunity for Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma?

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is the only promising treatment for end-stage liver disease and patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. However, too many organs are rejected for transplantation. METHODS: We analyzed the factors involved in organ allocation in our transplant center and reviewed all livers that were declined for transplantation. Reasons for declining organs for transplantation were categorized as major extended donor criteria (maEDC), size mismatch and vascular problems, medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and other reasons. The fate of the declined organs was analyzed. RESULTS: 1086 declined organs were offered 1200 times. A total of 31% of the livers were declined because of maEDC, 35.5% because of size mismatch and vascular problems, 15.8% because of medical reasons and risk of disease transmission, and 20.7% because of other reasons. A total of 40% of the declined organs were allocated and transplanted. A total of 50% of the organs were completely discarded, and significantly more of these grafts had maEDC than grafts that were eventually allocated (37.5% vs. 17.7%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Most organs were declined because of poor organ quality. Donor-recipient matching at time of allocation and organ preservation must be improved by allocating maEDC grafts using individualized algorithms that avoid high-risk donor-recipient combinations and unnecessary organ declination.

SARS-CoV-2 Seroprevalence and Clinical Features of COVID-19 in a German Liver Transplant Recipient Cohort: A Prospective Serosurvey Study.

BACKGROUND: In liver transplant (LT) recipients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), fatal outcome has been reported in a substantial subset of patients. Whether LT recipients are at increased risk for severe COVID-19 compared with the general population is controversial. Here we report the results of a severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) serosurvey in a large LT recipient cohort. METHODS: A total of 219 LT recipients were enrolled between May 5, 2020, and August 6, 2020, at the University Hospital Heidelberg. Serum blood samples were collected and tested for anti-SARS-CoV-2 IgG. SARS-CoV-2 RNA was detected in nasopharyngeal swabs using reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction assays. RESULTS: Taking into account known risk factors of arterial hypertension, obesity, diabetes, or leukopenia, LT recipients a priori represented a high-risk cohort for severe COVID-19 with 101 of 219 (46.1%) presenting with more than 2 risk factors for severe COVID-19. Out of 219 LT recipients, 8 (3.7%) either had a positive test result for nasopharyngeal SARS-CoV-2 RNA or anti-SARS-CoV-2 serum IgG. Five of eight (62.5%) did not show any clinical signs of infection, three of eight (37.5%) had self-limited disease, and none required hospitalization for COVID-19. Two of eight (25%) had known exposure to infected health care staff as the probable source of infection. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, LT recipients showed a SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion rate similar to that of the general population with a substantial percentage of unrecognized infections.

"Best practice" skills lab training vs. a "see one, do one" approach in undergraduate medical education: an RCT on students' long-term ability to perform procedural clinical skills.

BACKGROUND: Benefits of skills lab training are widely accepted, but there is sparse research on its long-term effectiveness. We therefore conducted a prospective, randomised controlled-trial to investigate whether in a simulated setting students trained according to a "best practice" model (BPSL) perform two skills of different complexity (nasogastral tube insertion, NGT; intravenous cannulation, IVC) better than students trained with a traditional "see one, do one" teaching approach (TRAD), at follow-up of 3 or 6 months. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 94 first-year medical students were randomly assigned to one of four groups: BPSL training or TRAD teaching with follow-up at 3 (3M) or 6 (6M) months. BPSL included structured feedback, practice on manikins, and Peyton's "Four-Step-Approach", while TRAD was only based on the "see one - do one" principle. At follow-up, manikins were used to assess students' performance by two independent blinded video-assessors using binary checklists and a single-item global assessment scale. BPSL students scored significantly higher immediately after training (NGT: BPSL3M 94.8%±0.2 and BPSL6M 95.4%±0.3 percentage of maximal score ± SEM; TRAD3M 86.1%±0.5 and TRAD6M 84.7%±0.4. IVC: BPSL3M 86.4%±0.5 and BPSL6M 88.0%±0.5; TRAD3M 73.2%±0.7 and TRAD6M 72.5%±0.7) and lost significantly less of their performance ability at each follow-up (NGT: BPSL3M 86.3%±0.3 and TRAD3M 70.3%±0.6; BPSL6M 89.0%±0.3 and TRAD6M 65.4%±0.6; IVC: BPSL3M 79.5%±0.5 and TRAD3M 56.5%±0.5; BPSL6M 73.2%±0.4 and TRAD6M 51.5%±0.8). In addition, BPSL students were more often rated clinically competent at all assessment times. The superiority at assessment after training was higher for the more complex skill (IVC), whereas NGT with its lower complexity profited more with regard to long-term retention. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that within a simulated setting BPSL is significantly more effective than TRAD for skills of different complexity assessed immediately after training and at follow-up. The advantages of BPSL training are seen especially in long-term retention.

Effectiveness of IV cannulation skills laboratory training and its transfer into clinical practice: a randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of skills laboratory training is widely recognized. Yet, the transfer of procedural skills acquired in skills laboratories into clinical practice has rarely been investigated. We conducted a prospective, randomised, double-blind, controlled trial to evaluate, if students having trained intravenous (IV) cannulation in a skills laboratory are rated as more professional regarding technical and communication skills compared to students who underwent bedside teaching when assessed objectively by independent video assessors and subjectively by patients. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 84 volunteer first-year medical students were randomly assigned to one of two groups. Three drop-outs occurred. The intervention group (IG; n = 41) trained IV cannulation in a skills laboratory receiving instruction after Peyton's 'Four-Step Approach'. The control group (CG; n = 40) received a bedside teaching session with volunteer students acting as patients. Afterwards, performance of IV cannulation of both groups in a clinical setting with students acting as patients was video-recorded. Two independent, blinded video assessors scored students' performance using binary checklists (BC) and the Integrated Procedural Protocol Instrument (IPPI). Patients assessed students' performance with the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT) and a modified IPPI. IG required significantly shorter time needed for the performance on a patient (IG: 595.4 SD(188.1)s; CG: 692.7 SD(247.8)s; 95%CI 23.5 s to 45.1 s; p = 0.049) and completed significantly more single steps of the procedure correctly (IG: 64% SD(14) for BC items; CG: 53% SD(18); 95%CI 10.25% to 11.75%; p = 0.004). IG also scored significantly better on IPPI ratings (median: IG: 3.1; CG: 3.6; p = 0.015;). Rated by patients, students' performance and patient-physician communication did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Transfer of IV cannulation-related skills acquired in a skills laboratory is superior to bedside teaching when rated by independent video raters by means of IPPI and BC. It enables students to perform IV cannulation more professionally on volunteer students acting as patients.