The Impact of a Displayed Checklist on Simulated Pediatric Trauma Resuscitations.

BACKGROUND: Advanced Trauma Life Support resuscitation follows a strict protocolized approach to the initial trauma evaluation. Despite this structure, elements of the primary and secondary assessments can still be omitted. The aim of this study is to determine if a cognitive aid checklist reduces omissions and speeds the time to assessment completion. We additionally investigated if a displayed checklist improved performance further. METHODS: A series of 131 simulated trauma resuscitations were performed. Teams were randomized to 1 of 3 arms (no checklist, handheld checklist, or displayed). The scenarios were recorded and analyzed to determine time to completion and absolute completion of tasks of the primary and secondary survey. The workload of individual team members was assessed via NASA-TLX. RESULTS: There was no difference in time to completion of surveys among the 3 arms. In the primary survey, there was a nonsignificant increase in the number of completed tasks with the use of the displayed checklist. In the secondary survey, there was a significant improvement in task completion with the displayed checklists with improved evaluation of the pelvis (P = 0.011), lower extremities (P = 0.048), and covering the patient (P = 0.046). There was a significant improvement in performance in those reported among nurse documenters with use of the displayed checklist. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a structured approach to trauma resuscitations, omissions still occur. The use of a displayed checklist improves performance and reduces omissions without delaying assessment. Better compliance with Advanced Trauma Life Support protocols may improve patient outcomes.

Once años de evaluaciones económicas de productos sanitarios en la Red de Agencias de Evaluación. Calidad metodológica e impacto del coste-utilidad / Eleven years of economic evaluations of medical devices by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies. Methodological quality and cost-utility impact

OBJETIVO: Analizar la calidad y el impacto de los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios realizados por la Red de Agencias de Evaluación (RedETS). MÉTODO: Los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios se identificaron buscando entre los informes de evaluación de la base de datos de la web de RedETS (2006-2016). La calidad se evaluó con un listado de verificación de calidad de RedETS, y su impacto, comparando resultados de coste-utilidad y la inclusión en la cartera común de servicios del Sistema Nacional de Salud. Se analizó la inclusión en la cartera común si la ratio de coste-efectividad incremental superaba o no los 25.000 € por año de vida ajustado por calidad. RESULTADOS: Se encontraron 25 análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios (12 de coste-utilidad, 10 de coste-efectividad y 3 de ambos). De ellos, 15 estudios con 19 ratios de coste-utilidad seleccionados cumplían al menos 18 de 25 criterios de verificación. Asimismo, 12 de los 15 estudios cumplían 18 de los 25 criterios. Sobre el impacto, en 6 de los 19 resultados se incluyó el producto en cartera aunque la ratio superó los 25.000 € por año de vida ajustado por calidad. En tres casos se está en proceso de reevaluación; en otro, de replanteamiento una vez realizados los informes de eficacia-seguridad de nuevos dispositivos; y en dos casos se señala en la cartera que debe seguirse un protocolo. CONCLUSIONES: La mayoría de los análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios analizados cumplieron casi todos los ítems del listado de verificación y, por tanto, fueron exhaustivos. Estos análisis de coste-utilidad de productos sanitarios fueron coherentes con el marco de toma de decisiones para manejar eficientemente la cartera del Sistema Nacional de Salud

OBJECTIVE: To analyse the quality and impact of cost-utility evaluations of medical devices carried out by the Spanish Network of Assessment Agencies (RedETS). METHOD: The cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were identified by searching the evaluation reports of the RedETS website database (2006-2016). Quality and its impact were evaluated with a RedETS quality checklist, comparing cost-utility results and inclusion in the portfolio of common services of the National Health System. The portfolio inclusion status was analysed considering whether the cost-effectiveness incremental ratio was or was not less than €25,000/quality adjusted life years. RESULTS: 25 cost-utility evaluations of medical devices were found (12 cost-utility, 10 cost-effectiveness and 3 both). Fifteen selected cost-utility studies with 19 cost-utility ratios met at least 18 of 25 verification criteria. Also, 12 of the 15 studies met 19 of the 25 criteria. On the impact, in 6 out of the 19 results, the product was included in the portfolio even though the ratio exceeded €25,000/quality adjusted life years. There are three cases undergoing a re-evaluation process, another case being reconsidered once the efficacy-safety of new devices has been reported and in two cases the portfolio states that protocols are required. CONCLUSIONS: Most of the cost-utility evaluations of medical devices published by RedETS fulfil most of the items on the checklist and, therefore, were thorough. These cost-utility evaluations of medical devices are consistent with the decision-making framework to efficiently manage the National Health System portfolio

Validación de checklist para evaluación de la capacitación con simulación clínica de la atención al paciente séptico / Checklist validation for evaluation of training with clinical simulation of septic patient care / Validação de checklist para avaliação da capacitação com simulação clínica do atendimento ao paciente séptico

Objetivo: Construir y validar el contenido de un checklist para evaluación de la capacitación de profesionales del área de la salud en la atención al paciente séptico con simulación clínica. Método: Estudio de validación metodológica de instrumento, con delineamiento estructural en dos etapas: construcción del instrumento y validación de contenido del checklist utilizando la técnica Delphi en dos rondas. Resultados: La validación de contenido fue compuesta por diez ítems y cuarenta y tres subítems analizados por los evaluadores. A través del Índice de Validez de Contenido, se identificaron cuatro ítems con fuerte evidencia de validación, Índice de Validez de Contenido ≥ 0,8. En la segunda ronda Delphi presentó un porcentaje de concordancia superior al 80% para todas las variables pertinentes al instrumento. Se reestructuró el checklist según recomendaciones de los evaluadores, manteniendo los diez ítems, pero con reducción para veintiséis subítems, que en la segunda ronda Delphi presentó un porcentaje de concordancia superior al 80% para todas las variables pertinentes al instrumento. Conclusión: Método fue eficaz para validar el contenido de un checklist que evaluará la capacitación de profesionales de la salud en la atención al paciente séptico, por medio de simulación clínica

Aims: Development and validation of the contents of a checklist to evaluate the qualification of health professionals in septic patient care with clinical simulation. Method: instrument validation study, with two-stage structural design: instrument construction and validation of the checklist contents using the Delphi technique in two rounds. Results: The content validation was composed of ten items and forty-three sub-items analyzed by the evaluators. Through the Content Validity Index, four items with strong validation evidence were identified, Content Validity Index ≥ 0.8. We restructured the checklist according to the evaluators recommendations, maintaining the ten items, but reducing them to twenty-six sub-items, which in the second round Delphi presented a percentage of agreement above 80% for all variables relevant to the instrument. Conclusion: This method was effective to validate the checklist contents that will evaluate the qualification of health professionals in septic patient care, through clinical simulation

Objetivos: Construir e validar o conteúdo de um checklist para avaliação da capacitação de profissionais da área da saúde no atendimento ao paciente séptico com simulação clínica. Método: Estudo de validação metodológica de instrumento, com delineamento estrutural em duas etapas: construção do instrumento e validação de conteúdo do checklist utilizando a técnica Delphi em duas rodadas. Resultados: A validação de conteúdo foi composta por dez itens e quarenta e três subitens analisados pelos avaliadores. Por meio do Índice de Validade de Conteúdo, identificaram-se quatro itens com forte evidência de validação, Índice de Validade de Conteúdo ≥ 0,8. Reestruturou o checklist conforme recomendações dos avaliadores, mantendo os dez itens, porém com redução para vinte e seis subitens, que na 2ª rodada Delphi apresentou percentual de concordância acima de 80% para todas as variáveis pertinentes ao instrumento. Conclusão: Método foi eficaz para validar o conteúdo de um checklist que avaliará a capacitação de profissionais da saúde no atendimento ao paciente séptico, por meio de simulação clínica

The stroke 8: a daily checklist for inpatient stroke management.

Checklists and disease-specific order sets are increasingly being used in health care to reduce medical errors and improve the quality of patient care. Stroke, which has standardized and well-defined care processes, is an idea/ideal condition for the use of checklists. We describe the Stroke 8 checklist, designed to be part of the daily assessment of patients hospitalized with acute stroke. It consists of 8 items classified into 3 categories as follows: (1) stroke prevention: antithrombotic use, statin use, glucose control, blood pressure control; (2) prevention of complications: deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis, temperature control; and (3) recovery and disposition: fluids and nutrition, mobility and therapy. The Stroke 8 checklist has been implemented in 3 formats over an 8-year period: laminated cards, an electronic documentation template, and an electronic template supplemented with clinical data autopopulated from the electronic health record. We have found the Stroke 8 to be a valuable tool in the daily inpatient management of patients with acute stroke.