Augmented Reality in Pediatric Septic Shock Simulation: Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Septic shock is a low-frequency but high-stakes condition in children requiring prompt resuscitation, which makes it an important target for simulation-based education. OBJECTIVE: In this study, we aimed to design and implement an augmented reality app (PediSepsisAR) for septic shock simulation, test the feasibility of measuring the timing and volume of fluid administration during septic shock simulation with and without PediSepsisAR, and describe PediSepsisAR as an educational tool. We hypothesized that we could feasibly measure our desired data during the simulation in 90% of the participants in each group. With regard to using PediSepsisAR as an educational tool, we hypothesized that the PediSepsisAR group would report that it enhanced their awareness of simulated patient blood flow and would more rapidly verbalize recognition of abnormal patient status and desired management steps. METHODS: We performed a randomized controlled feasibility trial with a convenience sample of pediatric care providers at a large tertiary care pediatric center. Participants completed a prestudy questionnaire and were randomized to either the PediSepsisAR or control (traditional simulation) arms. We measured the participants' time to administer 20, 40, and 60 cc/kg of intravenous fluids during a septic shock simulation using each modality. In addition, facilitators timed how long participants took to verbalize they had recognized tachycardia, hypotension, or septic shock and desired to initiate the sepsis pathway and administer antibiotics. Participants in the PediSepsisAR arm completed a poststudy questionnaire. We analyzed data using descriptive statistics and a Wilcoxon rank-sum test to compare the median time with event variables between groups. RESULTS: We enrolled 50 participants (n=25 in each arm). The timing and volume of fluid administration were captured in all the participants in each group. There was no statistically significant difference regarding time to administration of intravenous fluids between the two groups. Similarly, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding time to verbalized recognition of patient status or desired management steps. Most participants in the PediSepsisAR group reported that PediSepsisAR enhanced their awareness of the patient's perfusion. CONCLUSIONS: We developed an augmented reality app for use in pediatric septic shock simulations and demonstrated the feasibility of measuring the volume and timing of fluid administration during simulation using this modality. In addition, our findings suggest that PediSepsisAR may enhance participants' awareness of abnormal perfusion.

Preparedness for Pediatric Office Emergencies: A Multicenter, Simulation-Based Study.

OBJECTIVES: Pediatric emergencies can occur in pediatric primary care offices. However, few studies have measured emergency preparedness, or the processes of emergency care, provided in the pediatric office setting. In this study, we aimed to measure emergency preparedness and care in a national cohort of pediatric offices. METHODS: This was a multicenter study conducted over 15 months. Emergency preparedness scores were calculated as a percentage adherence to 2 checklists on the basis of the American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines (essential equipment and supplies and policies and protocols checklists). To measure the quality of emergency care, we recruited office teams for simulation sessions consisting of 2 patients: a child with respiratory distress and a child with a seizure. An unweighted percentage of adherence to checklists for each case was calculated. RESULTS: Forty-eight teams from 42 offices across 9 states participated. The mean emergency preparedness score was 74.7% (SD: 12.9). The mean essential equipment and supplies subscore was 82.2% (SD: 15.1), and the mean policies and protocols subscore was 57.1% (SD: 25.6). Multivariable analyses revealed that independent practices and smaller total staff size were associated with lower preparedness. The median asthma case performance score was 63.6% (interquartile range: 43.2-81.2), whereas the median seizure case score was 69.2% (interquartile range: 46.2-80.8). Offices that had a standardized process of contacting emergency medical services (EMS) had a higher rate of activating EMS during the simulations. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric office preparedness remains suboptimal in a multicenter cohort, especially in smaller, independent practices. Academic and community partnerships using simulation can help address gaps and implement important processes like contacting EMS.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the Performance of Emergency Pediatric Tasks.

OBJECTIVES: Personal protective equipment (PPE) is worn by health care providers (HCPs) to protect against hazardous exposures. Studies of HCPs performing critical resuscitation tasks in PPE have yielded mixed results and have not evaluated performance in care of children. We evaluated the impacts of PPE on timeliness or success of emergency procedures performed by pediatric HCPs. METHODS: This prospective study was conducted at 2 tertiary children's hospitals. For session 1, HCPs (medical doctors and registered nurses) wore normal attire; for session 2, they wore full-shroud PPE garb with 2 glove types: Ebola level or chemical. During each session, they performed clinical tasks on a patient simulator: intubation, bag-valve mask ventilation, venous catheter (IV) placement, push-pull fluid bolus, and defibrillation. Differences in completion time per task were compared. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in medical doctor completion time across sessions. For registered nurses, there was a significant difference between baseline and PPE sessions for both defibrillation and IV placement tasks. Registered nurses were faster to defibrillate in Ebola PPE and slower when wearing chemical PPE (median difference, -3.5 vs 2 seconds, respectively; P < 0.01). Registered nurse IV placement took longer in Ebola and chemical PPE (5.5 vs 42 seconds, respectively; P < 0.01). After the PPE session, participants were significantly less likely to indicate that full-body PPE interfered with procedures, was claustrophobic, or slowed them down. CONCLUSIONS: Personal protective equipment did not affect procedure timeliness or success on a simulated child, with the exception of IV placement. Further study is needed to investigate PPE's impact on procedures performed in a clinical care context.

Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on Pediatric Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Performance: A Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether personal protective equipment (PPE) results in deterioration in chest compression (CC) quality and greater fatigue for administering health care providers (HCPs). METHODS: In this multicenter study, HCPs completed 2 sessions. In session 1 (baseline), HCPs wore normal attire; in session 2, HCPs donned full PPE. During each session, they performed 5 minutes of uninterrupted CCs on a child manikin. Chest compression rate, depth, and release velocity were reported in ten 30-second epochs. Change in CC parameters and self-reported fatigue were measured between the start and 2- and 5-minute epochs. RESULTS: We enrolled 108 HCPs (prehospital and in-hospital providers). The median CC rate did not change significantly between epochs 1 and 10 during baseline sessions. Median CC depth and release velocity decreased for 5 minutes with PPE. There were no significant differences in CC parameters between baseline and PPE sessions in any provider group. Median fatigue scores during baseline sessions were 2 (at start), 4 (at 2 minutes), and 6 (at 5 minutes). There was a significantly higher median fatigue score between 0 and 5 minutes in both study sessions and in all groups. Fatigue scores were significantly higher for providers wearing PPE compared with baseline specifically among prehospital providers. CONCLUSIONS: During a clinically appropriate 2-minute period, neither CC quality nor self-reported fatigue worsened to a significant degree in providers wearing PPE. Our data suggest that Pediatric Basic Life Support recommendations for CC providers to switch every 2 minutes need not be altered with PPE use.

Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

AIM: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events. METHODS: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales. RESULTS: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15-30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98% (80%,100%). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication. CONCLUSION: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.