Background Briefing of the trauma team prior to patient arrival is unstructured in many centers. We surveyed trauma teams regarding agreement on patient care priorities, and evaluated the impact of a structured, physician-led briefing on concordance during simulated resuscitations. Methods Trauma nurses at our Level II center were surveyed, and participated in four resuscitation scenarios, randomized to “Briefed” or “Non-briefed.” For Non-briefed scenarios, nurses independently reviewed triage sheets with written information. Briefed scenarios had a structured, four-minute physician-led briefing reviewing triage sheets identical to Non-briefed scenarios. Teams included 3–4 nurses (subjects) and 2–4 confederates (physicians, respiratory therapists). Each team served as their own control group. Confederates were blinded to nurses’ Briefed or Non-briefed status. Immediately before, and at the midpoint of each scenario, nurses estimated patient morbidity and mortality and ranked the top 3 of 16 designated immediate care priorities. Briefed and Non-briefed groups’ responses were compared for: (1) Agreement using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), (2) Concordance with physicians’ responses using Fisher’s exact test, (3) Teamwork via T-NOTECHS ratings by nurses and physicians using t-test, (4) Time to complete clinical tasks using t-test. Results 38 nurses participated. 97% “agreed/strongly agreed” briefing is important, but only 46% agreed briefing was done well. Comparing Briefed versus Non-briefed scenarios, nurses’ estimation of morbidity and mortality in Briefed scenarios showed significantly greater agreement with each other and with physicians’ answers (p<0.01). Rank lists also better agreed with each other (ICC 0.64 vs 0.59) and with physicians’ answers in Briefed scenarios. T-NOTECHS Leadership ratings were significantly higher in Briefed scenarios (3.70 versus 3.39, p<.01). Time to completion of key clinical tasks was significantly faster for one of the Briefed scenarios. Conclusions Discordant perceptions of patient care goals was frequently observed. Structured, physician-led briefing appeared to improve interprofessional team concordance, leadership and task completion in simulated trauma resuscitations. Level of Evidence Level 3, Therapeutic / Care management
Background Trauma care requires coordinating an interprofessional team, with formative feedback on teamwork skills. We hypothesized nurses and surgeons have different perceptions regarding roles during resuscitation; that nurses’ teamwork self-assessment differs from experts’, and that video debriefing might improve accuracy of self-assessment. Methods Trauma nurses and surgeons were surveyed regarding resuscitation responsibilities. Subsequently, nurses joined interprofessional teams in simulated trauma resuscitations. Following each resuscitation, nurses and teamwork experts independently scored teamwork (T-NOTECHS). After video debriefing, nurses repeated T-NOTECHS self-assessment. Results Nurses and surgeons assumed significantly more responsibility by their own profession for 71% of resuscitation tasks. Nurses’ overall T-NOTECHS ratings were slightly higher than experts’. This was evident in all T-NOTECHS subdomains except “leadership,” but despite statistical significance the difference was small and clinically irrelevant. Video debriefing did not improve the accuracy of self-assessment. Conclusions Nurses and physicians demonstrated discordant perceptions of responsibilities. Nurses’ self-assessment of teamwork was statistically, but not clinically significantly, higher than experts’ in all domains except physician leadership.
Background Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) often face significant challenges related to providing effective pre-hospital care services. Barriers to providing care include lack of financial resources, poor road infrastructure, lack of trained first responders and ambulance staff, and issues regarding coordination/communication between different entities involved in Emergency Medical Services. Prior initiatives to characterize and improve the state of pre-hospital care in LMICs have largely focused on improving access to high-quality ambulance services by providing training programs to community first responders and ambulance staff on how to recognize and manage key emergency conditions. In this article, we discuss an alternative strategy for improving pre-hospital care: the creation of a context-specific Emergency Medical Dispatcher (EMD) training curriculum and program. Methods We describe the current pre-hospital care setting in Nepal, the process of creating and piloting the Nepal-specific EMD training manual, and the early impact of its implementation. Results The 30-h EMD training was designed, piloted, and revised in collaboration with the three largest EMS organizations in Nepal. The training is now required for all dispatchers at the Dhulikhel Hospital Dispatch Center, one of the largest ambulance dispatch networks in Nepal. Dispatchers are trained in the following knowledge and skill areas: telecommunication guidelines, triaging and documentation procedures, delivery of Basic Life Support instructions to callers, other medical and trauma-condition specific instructions, and limited resource management. The short-term positive impacts of the training’s implementation include improved documentation procedures, better prioritization of ambulance resources, delivery of Basic Life Support instructions to callers, and improved communication between dispatch, responders, and healthcare facilities. Conclusions Context-specific Emergency Medical Dispatch training programs, which aim to optimize the emergency resources available in resource-limited settings, present a promising low-cost, high-impact interventional strategy to strengthen the pre-hospital care systems in low- and middle-income countries.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.