Development and validation of an assessment tool for adult simulated ultrasound-guided fascia iliaca block: a prospective monocentric study.

BACKGROUND: Fascia iliaca block (FIB) is an effective technique for analgesia. While FIB using ultrasound is preferred, there is no current standardised training technique or assessment scale. We aimed to create a valid and reliable tool to assess ultrasound-guided FIB. METHOD: This prospective observational study was conducted in the ABS-Lab simulation centre, University of Poitiers, France between 26-29 October and 14-17 December 2021. Psychometric testing included validity analysis and reliability between two independent observers. Content validity was established using the Delphi method. Three rounds of feedback were required to reach consensus. To validate the scale, 26 residents and 24 emergency physicians performed a simulated FIB on SIMLIFE, a simulator using a pulsated, revascularised and reventilated cadaver. Validity was tested using Cronbach's α coefficient for internal consistency. Comparative and Spearman's correlation analysis was performed to determine whether the scale discriminated by learner experience with FIB and professional status. Reliability was analysed using the intraclass correlation (ICC) coefficient and a correlation score using linear regression (R2). RESULTS: The final 30-item scale had 8 parts scoring 30 points: patient positioning, preparation of aseptic and tools, anatomical and ultrasound identification, local anaesthesia, needle insertion, injection, final ultrasound control and signs of local anaesthetic systemic toxicity. Psychometric characteristics were as follows: Cronbach's α was 0.83, ICC was 0.96 and R2 was 0.91. The performance score was significantly higher for learners with FIB experience compared with those without experience: 26.5 (22.0; 29.0) vs 22.5 (16.0; 26.0), respectively (p=0.02). There was a significant difference between emergency residents' and emergency physicians' scores: 20.5 (17.0; 25.0) vs 27.0 (26.0; 29.0), respectively (p=0.0001). The performance was correlated with clinical experience (Rho=0.858, p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: This assessment scale was found to be valid, reliable and able to identify different levels of experience with ultrasound-guided FIB.

Development of a Performance Assessment Scale for Simulated Dispatcher-Assisted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (Telephone-CPR): A Multi-Center Randomized Simulation-Based Clinical Trial.

INTRODUCTION: Dispatchers should be trained to interrogate bystanders with strict protocols to elicit information focused on recognizing cardiac arrest and should provide telephone cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) instructions in all cases of suspected cardiac arrest. While an objective assessment of training outcomes is needed, there is no performance assessment scale for simulated dispatcher-assisted CPR. STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to create a valid and reliable performance assessment scale for simulated dispatcher-assisted CPR. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, controlled, multi-centric simulation-based trial (registration number TCTR20210130002), the scale was developed according to the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) and American Heart Association (AHA) Guidelines 2015 and revised by experts. The performance of 48 dispatchers' telephone-CPR and of 48 bystanders carrying out CPR on a manikin was assessed by two independent evaluators using the scale and using a SkillReporter (PC) software to provide CPR objective performance. Continuous variables were described as mean (SD) and categorical variables as numbers and percentage (%). Comparative analysis between two groups used a Student t-test or a non-parametric test of Mann-Whitney. The internal structure of the scale was evaluated, including internal consistency using α Cronbach coefficient, and reproducibility using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and linear correlation coefficient (R2) calculation. RESULTS: The scale included three different parts: two sections for dispatchers' (32 items) and bystanders' CPR performance (15 items) assessment, and a third part recording times. There was excellent internal consistency (α Cronbach coefficient = 0.77) and reproducibility (ICC = 0.93; R² = 0.86). For dispatchers' performance assessment, α Cronbach coefficient = 0.76; ICC = 0.91; R2 = 0.84. For bystanders' performance assessment, α Cronbach coefficient = 0.75; ICC = 0.93; R2 = 0.87. Reproducibility was excellent for nine items, good for 19 items, and moderate for 19 items. No item had poor reproducibility. There was no significant difference between dispatch doctors' and medical dispatch assistants' performances (33.0 [SD = 4.7] versus 32.3 [SD = 3.2] out of 52, respectively; P = .70) or between trained and untrained bystanders to follow the instructions (14.3 [SD = 2.0] versus 13.9 [SD = 1.8], respectively; P = .64). Objective performance (%) was significantly higher for trained bystanders than for untrained bystanders (67.4 [SD = 14.5] versus 50.6 [SD = 19.3], respectively; P = .03). CONCLUSION: The scale was valid and reliable to assess performance for simulated dispatcher-assisted CPR. To the authors' knowledge, no other valid performance tool currently exists. It could be used in simulated telephone-CPR training programs to improve performance.

Outpatient Management of Patients With COVID-19: Multicenter Prospective Validation of the Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection Rule to Discharge Patients Safely.

BACKGROUND: The Hospitalization or Outpatient Management of Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection (HOME-CoV) rule is a checklist of eligibility criteria for home treatment of patients with COVID-19, defined using a Delphi method. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the HOME-CoV rule reliable for identifying a subgroup of COVID-19 patients with a low risk of adverse outcomes who can be treated at home safely? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We aimed to validate the HOME-CoV rule in a prospective, multicenter study before and after trial of patients with probable or confirmed COVID-19 who sought treatment at the ED of 34 hospitals. The main outcome was an adverse evolution, that is, invasive ventilation or death, occurring within the 7 days after patient admission. The performance of the rule was assessed by the false-negative rate. The impact of the rule implementation was assessed by the absolute differences in the rate of patients who required invasive ventilation or who died and in the rate of patients treated at home, between an observational and an interventional period after implementation of the HOME-CoV rule, with propensity score adjustment. RESULTS: Among 3,000 prospectively enrolled patients, 1,239 (41.3%) demonstrated a negative HOME-CoV rule finding. The false-negative rate of the HOME-CoV rule was 4 in 1,239 (0.32%; 95% CI, 0.13%-0.84%), and its area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 80.9 (95% CI, 76.5-85.2). On the adjusted populations, 25 of 1,274 patients (1.95%) experienced an adverse evolution during the observational period vs 12 of 1,274 patients (0.95%) during the interventional period: -1.00 (95% CI, -1.86 to -0.15). During the observational period, 858 patients (67.35%) were treated at home vs 871 patients (68.37%) during the interventional period: -1.02 (95% CI, -4.46 to 2.26). INTERPRETATION: A large proportion of patients treated in the ED with probable or confirmed COVID-19 have a negative HOME-CoV rule finding and can be treated safely at home with a very low risk of complications. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04338841; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.

Early high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy in adults with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure in the ED: A before-after study.

OBJECTIVES: To compare clinical impact after early initiation of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy (HFNC) versus standard oxygen in patients admitted to an emergency department (ED) for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: We performed a prospective before-after study at EDs in two centers including patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure defined by a respiratory rate above 25 breaths/min or signs of increased breathing effort under additional oxygen for a pulse oximetry above 92%. Patients with cardiogenic pulmonary edema or exacerbation of chronic lung disease were excluded. All patients were treated with standard oxygen during the first period and with HFNC during the second. The primary outcome was the proportion of patients with improved respiratory failure 1 h after treatment initiation (respiratory rate ≤ 25 breaths/min without signs of increased breathing effort). Dyspnea and blood gases were also assessed. RESULTS: Among the 102 patients included, 48 were treated with standard oxygen and 54 with HFNC. One hour after treatment initiation, patients with HFNC were much more likely to recover from respiratory failure than those treated with standard oxygen: 61% (33 of 54 patients) versus 15% (7 of 48 patients), P < 0.001. They also showed greater improvement in oxygenation (increase in PaO2 was 31 mm Hg [0-67] vs. 9 [-9-36], P = 0.02), and in feeling of breathlessness. CONCLUSIONS: As compared to standard oxygen, patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure treated with HFNC at the ED had better oxygenation, less breathlessness and were more likely to show improved respiratory failure 1 h after initiation.