Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Two Different Cognitive Aid Bundle Designs on Adherence to Best Clinical Practice in Simulated Perioperative Emergencies.
van Haperen, Maartje; Kemper, Tom C P M; Koers, Lena; van Wandelen, Suzanne B E; Waller, Elbert; de Klerk, Eline S; Eberl, Susanne; Hollmann, Markus W; Preckel, Benedikt.
Afiliação
  • van Haperen M; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Kemper TCPM; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Koers L; Department of Paediatric Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Leiden, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.
  • van Wandelen SBE; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Waller E; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • de Klerk ES; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Eberl S; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Hollmann MW; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
  • Preckel B; Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
J Clin Med ; 13(17)2024 Sep 05.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39274467
ABSTRACT

Background:

Stress and human error during perioperative emergency situations can significantly impact patient morbidity and mortality. Previous research has shown that cognitive aid bundles (CABs) minimize critical misses by 75%. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different CAB designs with the same content in reducing missed critical management steps for simulated perioperative emergencies.

Methods:

A multicenter randomized controlled simulation-based study was conducted including 27 teams, each consisting of three participants; each team performed four simulation scenarios. In the first scenario for each team (Scenario 1), no CAB was used. Scenarios 2 and 3 were randomly allocated to the groups, with either a branched, clustered design (CAB-1) or a linear, step-by-step design (CAB-2) of the cognitive aid. In Scenario 4, the groups used one of the previously mentioned CABs according to their own preference. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of missed critical management steps between the two different CABs. Secondary outcomes included user preference for one CAB design and the reduction in percentage of missed critical management steps using any CAB versus no CAB.

Results:

Twenty-seven teams simulated 108 perioperative emergency situations. The percentage of missed critical management steps was similar between CAB-1 and CAB-2 (27% [interquartile range (IQR) 20-29] versus 29% [IQR 20-35], p = 0.23). However, most participants favored the branched, clustered design CAB-1 (77.8%). Additionally, employing any CAB reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps by 36% (33% missed steps vs. 21% missed steps, p = 0.003).

Conclusions:

While the two CAB designs did not differ significantly in reducing missed critical management steps, the branched, clustered design was perceived as more user-friendly. Importantly, using any CAB significantly reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps compared to not using a cognitive aid, emphasizing the need for CAB use in the operating room.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article