Rapid Cycle Deliberate Practice Improves Retention of Pediatric Resuscitation Skills Compared With Postsimulation Debriefing.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid cycle deliberate practice (RCDP) for teaching team-based resuscitation is associated with similar improvements in immediate performance as compared with postsimulation debriefing (PSD). Limited studies compare skill retention between these 2 modalities. Our objective was to compare retention of team leader performance in residents trained with RCDP versus PSD. METHODS: This was a cluster-randomized trial comparing RCDP and PSD from January 2018 to April 2019. Pediatric and emergency medicine residents participated in simulation-based pediatric resuscitation education, and teams were randomized to undergo either RCDP or PSD. Each participant's team leader performance was assessed 1 to 12 months after training via a simulated cardiac arrest. The primary outcome was time to defibrillation. Secondary outcomes included overall team leader performance and time to chest compressions. RESULTS: Thirty-two residents (90.6% pediatrics, 9.4% emergency medicine) met inclusion criteria (16 RCDP, 16 PSD). Of the 32 residents, 40% returned in 1 to 3 months, 25% 3 to 6 months, 16% 6 to 9 months, and 19% 10 to 12 months. Participants in RCDP had more than 5 times the odds of achieving defibrillation versus those in the PSD group (odds ratio = 5.57, 95% confidence interval = 1.13-27.52, P = 0.04). The RCDP group had a higher mean Resident Team Leader Evaluation score (0.54 ± 0.19) than the PSD group (0.34 ± 0.16, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study shows significant differences in subsequent performance in the team leader trained with RCDP and suggests that RCDP may improve retention of pediatric resuscitation skills compared with PSD. Future studies should focus on best applications for RCDP with attention to knowledge and skill decay.

Evolution of clinical event debriefs in a quaternary pediatric emergency department after implementation of a debriefing tool.

BACKGROUND: Debriefing clinical events in the emergency department (ED) can enhance team performance and provide mutual support. However, ED debriefing remains infrequent and nonstandardized. A clinical tool (DISCERN-Debriefing In Situ Conversation after Emergent Resuscitation Now) was developed to facilitate ED debriefing. To date, there are no studies providing qualitative analysis of clinical event debriefs done using such a tool. Our goal was to explore common themes elicited by debriefing following implementation of DISCERN. METHODS: This was a retrospective mixed-methods study analyzing DISCERN data from 2012 through 2017 in a pediatric ED. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. With constant comparison analysis, themes were categorized when applicable within the context of crisis resource management (CRM) principles, previously used as a framework for description of nontechnical skills. Member checking was performed to ensure trustworthiness. RESULTS: We reviewed 400 DISCERN forms. Overall, 170 (41.6%) of target clinical events were debriefed during the study period. The number of clinical events debriefed per year decreased significantly over the study period, from 118 debriefed events in 2013 to 20 debriefed events in 2017 (p < 0.001). Events were more likely to be debriefed if cardiopulmonary resuscitation was needed (odds ratio [OR] = 11.8, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 4.1-33.8]) or if the patient expired (OR = 8.9, 95% CI = 2.7-29.1]). CRM principles accounted for 81% of debriefing statements, focusing on teamwork, communication, and preparation, and these themes remained consistent throughout the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Use of the DISCERN tool declined over the study period. The DISCERN tool was utilized more commonly after the highest-acuity events. Clinical event debriefs aligned with CRM principles, with medical knowledge discussed less frequently, and the content of debriefs remained stable over time.

Development and implementation of an end-of-shift clinical debriefing method for emergency departments during COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Multiple guidelines recommend debriefing after clinical events in the emergency department (ED) to improve performance, but their implementation has been limited. We aimed to start a clinical debriefing program to identify opportunities to address teamwork and patient safety during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We reviewed existing literature on best-practice guidelines to answer key clinical debriefing program design questions. An end-of-shift huddle format for the debriefs allowed multiple cases of suspected or confirmed COVID-19 illness to be discussed in the same session, promoting situational awareness and team learning. A novel ED-based clinical debriefing tool was implemented and titled Debriefing In Situ COVID-19 to Encourage Reflection and Plus-Delta in Healthcare After Shifts End (DISCOVER-PHASE). A facilitator experienced in simulation debriefings would facilitate a short (10-25 min) discussion of the relevant cases by following a scripted series of stages for debriefing. Data on the number of debriefing opportunities, frequency of utilization of debriefing, debriefing location, and professional background of the facilitator were analyzed. RESULTS: During the study period, the ED treated 3386 suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases, with 11 deaths and 77 ICU admissions. Of the 187 debriefing opportunities in the first 8-week period, 163 (87.2%) were performed. Of the 24 debriefings not performed, 21 (87.5%) of these were during the four first weeks (21/24; 87.5%). Clinical debriefings had a median duration of 10 min (IQR 7-13). They were mostly facilitated by a nurse (85.9%) and mainly performed remotely (89.8%). CONCLUSION: Debriefing with DISCOVER-PHASE during the COVID-19 pandemic were performed often, were relatively brief, and were most often led remotely by a nurse facilitator. Future research should describe the clinical and organizational impact of this DISCOVER-PHASE.

Interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs using a pediatric example.

BACKGROUND: Radiograph teaching files are usually dominated by abnormal cases, implying that normal radiographs are easier to interpret. Our main objective was to compare the interpretation difficulty of normal versus abnormal radiographs of a set of common pediatric radiographs. METHODS: We developed a 234-item digital case bank of pediatric ankle radiographs, recruited a convenience sample of participants, and presented the cases to each participant who then classified the cases as normal or abnormal. We determined and contrasted the interpretation difficulty of the normal and abnormal x-rays items using Rasch Measurement Theory. We also identified case features that were associated with item difficulty. RESULTS: 139 participants (86 medical students, 7 residents, 29 fellows, 5 emergency physicians, and 3 radiologists) rated a minimum of 50 cases each, which resulted in 16,535 total ratings. Abnormal cases were more difficult (+0.99 logits) than were normal ones (-0.58 logits), difference 1.57 logits (95% CI 1.2, 2.0), but there was considerable overlap in difficulty scores. Patient variables associated with a more difficult normal radiograph included younger patient age (ß = -0.16, 95% CI -0.22, -0.10), history of distal fibular tenderness (ß = 0.55, 95% CI 0.17, 0.93), and presence of a secondary ossification centre (ß = 0.84, 95% CI 0.27, 1.41). CONCLUSIONS: While abnormal images were more difficult to interpret, normal images did show a range of interpretation difficulties. Including a significant proportion of normal cases may be of benefit to learners.