Suppr超能文献

两种不同认知辅助工具包设计对模拟围手术期紧急情况中最佳临床实践依从性影响的比较分析

A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Two Different Cognitive Aid Bundle Designs on Adherence to Best Clinical Practice in Simulated Perioperative Emergencies.

作者信息

van Haperen Maartje, Kemper Tom C P M, Koers Lena, van Wandelen Suzanne B E, Waller Elbert, de Klerk Eline S, Eberl Susanne, Hollmann Markus W, Preckel Benedikt

机构信息

Department of Anaesthesiology, Amsterdam University Medical Centre, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Department of Paediatric Intensive Care, University Medical Centre Leiden, 2333 ZA Leiden, The Netherlands.

出版信息

J Clin Med. 2024 Sep 5;13(17):5253. doi: 10.3390/jcm13175253.

Abstract

Stress and human error during perioperative emergency situations can significantly impact patient morbidity and mortality. Previous research has shown that cognitive aid bundles (CABs) minimize critical misses by 75%. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different CAB designs with the same content in reducing missed critical management steps for simulated perioperative emergencies. A multicenter randomized controlled simulation-based study was conducted including 27 teams, each consisting of three participants; each team performed four simulation scenarios. In the first scenario for each team (Scenario 1), no CAB was used. Scenarios 2 and 3 were randomly allocated to the groups, with either a branched, clustered design (CAB-1) or a linear, step-by-step design (CAB-2) of the cognitive aid. In Scenario 4, the groups used one of the previously mentioned CABs according to their own preference. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of missed critical management steps between the two different CABs. Secondary outcomes included user preference for one CAB design and the reduction in percentage of missed critical management steps using any CAB versus no CAB. Twenty-seven teams simulated 108 perioperative emergency situations. The percentage of missed critical management steps was similar between CAB-1 and CAB-2 (27% [interquartile range (IQR) 20-29] versus 29% [IQR 20-35], = 0.23). However, most participants favored the branched, clustered design CAB-1 (77.8%). Additionally, employing any CAB reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps by 36% (33% missed steps vs. 21% missed steps, = 0.003). While the two CAB designs did not differ significantly in reducing missed critical management steps, the branched, clustered design was perceived as more user-friendly. Importantly, using any CAB significantly reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps compared to not using a cognitive aid, emphasizing the need for CAB use in the operating room.

摘要

围手术期紧急情况下的压力和人为失误会显著影响患者的发病率和死亡率。先前的研究表明,认知辅助工具包(CABs)可将关键失误减少75%。本研究旨在比较两种内容相同但设计不同的CAB在减少模拟围手术期紧急情况中关键管理步骤遗漏方面的效果。开展了一项多中心随机对照模拟研究,纳入27个团队,每个团队由三名参与者组成;每个团队进行四个模拟场景。在每个团队的第一个场景(场景1)中,不使用CAB。场景2和3被随机分配到各小组,分别使用分支式、聚类设计的认知辅助工具(CAB-1)或线性、逐步设计的认知辅助工具(CAB-2)。在场景4中,各小组根据自身偏好使用上述CAB之一。主要结局是两种不同CAB之间关键管理步骤遗漏百分比的差异。次要结局包括用户对一种CAB设计的偏好,以及使用任何CAB与不使用CAB相比关键管理步骤遗漏百分比的降低情况。27个团队模拟了108例围手术期紧急情况。CAB-1和CAB-2之间关键管理步骤遗漏百分比相似(27%[四分位间距(IQR)20 - 29]对29%[IQR 20 - 35],P = 0.23)。然而,大多数参与者更喜欢分支式、聚类设计的CAB-!(77.8%)。此外,使用任何CAB可使关键管理步骤遗漏百分比降低36%(遗漏步骤33%对21%,P = 0.003)。虽然两种CAB设计在减少关键管理步骤遗漏方面无显著差异,但分支式、聚类设计被认为更便于用户使用。重要的是,与不使用认知辅助工具相比,使用任何CAB均显著降低了关键管理步骤遗漏百分比,强调了在手术室使用CAB的必要性。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/536a/11395788/bc82c08c5b28/jcm-13-05253-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验