Farquharson Barbara, Cortegiani Andrea, Lauridsen Kasper G, Yeung Joyce, Greif Robert, Nabecker Sabine
Faculty of Health Sciences & Sport, University of Stirling, Stirling, United Kingdom.
Department of Precision Medicine in Medical Surgical and Critical Care (Me.Pre.C.C.), University of Palermo, Italy.
Resusc Plus. 2024 Jun 18;19:100687. doi: 10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100687. eCollection 2024 Sep.
To evaluate the effectiveness of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies on clinical and educational outcomes.
This systematic review was prospectively registered (PROSPERO CRD42023473154) and followed the PICOST (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) format. All randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies evaluating learners undertaking life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies in any setting (actual and simulated resuscitations) were included. Unpublished studies were excluded. Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases as well as trial registries were searched from inception to August 2023 (updated January 18, 2024). Two researchers performed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, data extraction, assessment of risk of bias (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I) and certainty of evidence (using GRADE). PRISMA reporting checklist was used to report the results. No funding was obtained to perform this systematic review.
The literature search identified 5470 manuscripts. After the removal of 2073 duplicates, reviewing the remaining articles' titles and abstracts yielded 31 articles for full-text review. Of these, 17 studies were finally included. The studies involved the following training levels: basic life support, adult advanced life support, paediatric and neonatal resuscitations. Most studies (n = 16) evaluated outcomes in simulated, and only one study in actual resuscitations. Studies included in all training contexts showed either neutrality and/or benefits of life support training with specific emphasis on team competencies. Team competencies training improved CPR skill performance and CPR quality. Specific team competencies that improved included leadership, communication, decision-making and task management. No undesirable effects were observed. Meta-analysis was not possible due to significant methodological heterogeneity. Sub-group analysis was impossible due to lack of data. Risk of bias assessment ranged from some concerns to serious. Overall certainty of evidence was rated as low to very low due to risk of bias and imprecision.
This systematic review identified very low and low certainty evidence, almost entirely derived from simulation studies. The studies and their findings were heterogenous but suggest that teaching team competencies can improve resuscitation skills performance and CPR quality, as well as improve team competencies, specifically leadership, communication, decision-making, and task management. Further research is required to understand optimal configuration of team competencies training interventions and to understand the effect on clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness.
评估以团队能力为重点的生命支持培训对临床和教育成果的有效性。
本系统评价已进行前瞻性注册(PROSPERO CRD42023473154),并遵循PICOST(人群、干预措施、对照、结局、研究设计、时间范围)格式。纳入所有评估学习者在任何环境(实际和模拟复苏)中接受以团队能力为重点的生命支持培训的随机对照试验和非随机研究。排除未发表的研究。检索了Medline、Embase和Cochrane数据库以及试验注册库,检索时间从建库至2023年8月(2024年1月18日更新)。两名研究人员进行标题和摘要筛选、全文筛选、数据提取、偏倚风险评估(使用RoB2和ROBINS-I)以及证据确定性评估(使用GRADE)。使用PRISMA报告清单报告结果。未获得进行本系统评价的资金。
文献检索共识别出5470篇手稿。去除2073篇重复文献后,对其余文章的标题和摘要进行审查,筛选出31篇文章进行全文审查。其中,最终纳入17项研究。这些研究涉及以下培训水平:基础生命支持、成人高级生命支持、儿科和新生儿复苏。大多数研究(n = 16)评估的是模拟环境中的结局,只有一项研究评估的是实际复苏中的结局。所有培训背景下纳入的研究均显示,以团队能力为重点的生命支持培训具有中性和/或有益效果。团队能力培训提高了心肺复苏技能表现和心肺复苏质量。得到改善的具体团队能力包括领导能力、沟通能力、决策能力和任务管理能力。未观察到不良影响。由于方法学上存在显著异质性,无法进行荟萃分析。由于缺乏数据,无法进行亚组分析。偏倚风险评估结果从有些担忧到严重不等。由于存在偏倚风险和不精确性,总体证据确定性被评为低至极低。
本系统评价发现证据确定性极低和低,几乎完全来自模拟研究。这些研究及其结果存在异质性,但表明教授团队能力可提高复苏技能表现和心肺复苏质量,以及提高团队能力,特别是领导能力、沟通能力、决策能力和任务管理能力。需要进一步研究以了解团队能力培训干预措施的最佳配置,并了解其对临床结局和成本效益的影响。