Siegel Nathan A, Kobayashi Leo, Dunbar-Viveiros Jennifer A, Devine Jeffrey, Al-Rasheed Rakan S, Gardiner Fenwick G, Olsson Krister, Lai Stella, Jones Mark S, Dannecker Max, Overly Frank L, Gosbee John W, Portelli David C, Jay Gregory D
From the Department of Emergency Medicine (N.A.S., L.K., F.L.O., D.C.P., G.D.J.), Alpert Medical School, and School of Engineering (G.D.J.), Brown University; Lifespan Medical Simulation Center (L.K., J.A.D.-V., J.D., R.S.A.-R., M.S.J., M.D., F.L.O.); and Emergency Department (J.D., F.G.G.), Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI; College of Nursing (J.A.D.-V.), University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA; Tree-axis (K.O., S.L.), Los Angeles, CA; Office of Clinical Affairs (J.W.G.), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI; and King Abdulaziz Medical City (R.S.A.-R.), National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Simul Healthc. 2015 Jun;10(3):146-53. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000083.
Patient safety during emergency department procedural sedation (EDPS) can be difficult to study. Investigators sought to delineate and experimentally assess EDPS performance and safety practices of senior-level emergency medicine residents through in situ simulation.
Study sessions used 2 pilot-tested EDPS scenarios with critical action checklists, institutional forms, embedded probes, and situational awareness questionnaires. An experimental informatics system was separately developed for bedside EDPS process guidance. Postgraduate year 3 and 4 subjects completed both scenarios in randomized order; only experimental subjects were provided with the experimental system during second scenarios.
Twenty-four residents were recruited into a control group (n = 12; 6.2 ± 7.4 live EDPS experience) and experimental group (n = 12; 11.3 ± 8.2 live EDPS experience [P = 0.10]). Critical actions for EDPS medication selection, induction, and adverse event recognition with resuscitation were correctly performed by most subjects. Presedation evaluations, sedation rescue preparation, equipment checks, time-outs, and documentation were frequently missed. Time-outs and postsedation assessments increased during second scenarios in the experimental group. Emergency department procedural sedation safety probe detection did not change across scenarios in either group. Situational awareness scores were 51% ± 7% for control group and 58% ± 12% for experimental group. Subjects using the experimental system completed more time-outs and scored higher Simulation EDPS Safety Composite Scores, although without comprehensive improvements in EDPS practice or safety.
Study simulations delineated EDPS and assessed safety behaviors in senior emergency medicine residents, who exhibited the requisite medical knowledge base and procedural skill set but lacked some nontechnical skills that pertain to emergency department microsystem functions and patient safety. The experimental system exhibited limited impact only on in-simulation time-out compliance.
急诊室程序性镇静(EDPS)期间的患者安全可能难以研究。研究人员试图通过现场模拟来描述和实验评估高级急诊医学住院医师的EDPS表现和安全实践。
研究环节使用了2个经过预测试的EDPS场景,带有关键行动检查表、机构表格、嵌入式探针和情景意识问卷。另外还开发了一个实验信息系统用于床边EDPS流程指导。三年级和四年级研究生按随机顺序完成两个场景;只有实验组的受试者在第二个场景中使用实验系统。
招募了24名住院医师,分为对照组(n = 12;实际EDPS经验6.2 ± 7.4次)和实验组(n = 12;实际EDPS经验11.3 ± 8.2次[P = 0.10])。大多数受试者正确执行了EDPS药物选择、诱导以及复苏时不良事件识别的关键行动。镇静前评估、镇静抢救准备、设备检查、暂停和记录经常被遗漏。实验组在第二个场景中暂停和镇静后评估有所增加。两组在不同场景中急诊室程序性镇静安全探针检测情况均未改变。对照组的情景意识得分为51% ± 7%,实验组为58% ± 12%。使用实验系统的受试者完成了更多的暂停,模拟EDPS安全综合得分更高,尽管在EDPS实践或安全性方面没有全面改善。
研究模拟描述了EDPS并评估了高级急诊医学住院医师的安全行为,他们具备必要的医学知识库和程序技能,但缺乏一些与急诊室微系统功能和患者安全相关的非技术技能。实验系统仅对模拟中的暂停合规性产生了有限影响。