Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Department of Pediatrics, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
Department of Neonatology, Radboud University Medical Center Amalia Children's Hospital, P.O. Box 9101, 6500, HB, Nijmegen, the Netherlands.
BMC Emerg Med. 2021 Oct 15;21(1):121. doi: 10.1186/s12873-021-00509-0.
The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is widely recommended and taught in many resuscitation courses. This study assessed the adherence to the ABCDE algorithm and whether this was affected by the instruction method used to teach this approach.
Randomized controlled trial in which simulation was used as investigational method. Between June 2017 and January 2018, neonatal healthcare providers routinely participated in simulated neonatal advanced life support (NALS) scenarios, using a high-fidelity manikin. They were randomly assigned to a video-based instruction (intervention group) or a conventional lecture (control group) as the method of instruction. One blinded researcher evaluated the adherence to the ABCDE approach on video with an assessment tool specifically designed and tested for this study. The primary outcomes were: 1) the overall adherence and 2) the between-group difference in individual adherence to the ABCDE approach, both expressed as a percentage score. Secondary outcomes were: 1) the scores of each profession category (nurses, neonatal ward clinicians, fellows/neonatologists) and 2) the scores for the separate domains (A, B, C, D, and E) of the algorithm.
Seventy-two participants were assessed. Overall mean (SD) percentage score (i.e. overall adherence) was 31.5% (19.0). The video-based instruction group (28 participants) adhered better to the ABCDE approach than the lecture group (44 participants), with mean (SD) scores of 38.8% (18.7) and 27.8% (18.2), respectively (p = 0.026). The difference in adherence between both groups could mainly be attributed to differences in the adherence to domain B (p = 0.023) and C (p = 0.007). Neonatal ward clinicians (39.9% (18.2)) showed better adherence than nurses (25.0% (15.2)), independent of the study group (p = 0.010).
Overall adherence to the ABCDE algorithm was rather low. Video-based instruction resulted in better adherence to the ABCDE approach during NALS training than lecturing.
ISRCTN registry, trial ID ISRCTN95998973 , retrospectively registered on October 13th, 2020.
气道、呼吸、循环、残疾和暴露(ABCDE)方法在许多复苏课程中被广泛推荐和教授。本研究评估了对 ABCDE 算法的依从性,以及使用教授该方法的不同教学方法是否会对此产生影响。
这是一项使用模拟作为研究方法的随机对照试验。2017 年 6 月至 2018 年 1 月期间,新生儿保健提供者常规参与使用高保真人体模型的新生儿高级生命支持(NALS)模拟场景。他们被随机分配到基于视频的指导(干预组)或传统讲座(对照组)作为教学方法。一名盲法研究人员使用专门为此研究设计和测试的评估工具,在视频上评估对 ABCDE 方法的依从性。主要结局是:1)整体依从性和 2)个体对 ABCDE 方法的依从性的组间差异,均以百分比评分表示。次要结局是:1)每个专业类别(护士、新生儿病房临床医生、研究员/新生儿科医生)的分数和 2)算法的单独域(A、B、C、D 和 E)的分数。
共有 72 名参与者接受了评估。整体平均(SD)百分比评分(即整体依从性)为 31.5%(19.0)。与讲座组(44 名参与者)相比,基于视频的指导组(28 名参与者)对 ABCDE 方法的依从性更好,平均(SD)评分分别为 38.8%(18.7)和 27.8%(18.2)(p=0.026)。两组之间依从性的差异主要归因于域 B(p=0.023)和 C(p=0.007)的依从性差异。新生儿病房临床医生(39.9%(18.2))的依从性优于护士(25.0%(15.2)),与研究组无关(p=0.010)。
总体而言,对 ABCDE 算法的依从性相当低。在 NALS 培训中,基于视频的指导比讲座更能提高对 ABCDE 方法的依从性。
ISRCTN 注册,试验 ID ISRCTN95998973,于 2020 年 10 月 13 日回顾性注册。