Improving resuscitation using a post-arrest debriefing tool

Gallagher, Grainne; Morkane, Clare; Sharma, Davina

doi:10.1016/j.resuscitation.2012.08.269

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…13 A survey of cardiac arrest team members from one human hospital in the United Kingdom found that 72% of participants reported never to have performed a postarrest debriefing, yet over 90% of responders felt debriefing would benefit individual and team performance. 1,14 Information related to postarrest debriefing in the veterinary environment is scarce. One internet-based survey found that between 13% and 22.5% of general practitioners and 45% of veterinarians board certified in anesthesia or emergency and critical care conducted team meetings to analyze resuscitation attempts.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Implementation of a postarrest debriefing tool in a veterinary university hospital

Timothy

Brown

Thomas

2021

J Vet Emergen Crit Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To describe the use of a postarrest debriefing tool (DBT) within a university teaching hospital and to evaluate user perceptions of the tool.Design: Observational study over a 1-year period and associated hospital clinical personnel survey.Setting: University teaching hospital. Interventions:Qualitative data surrounding the use and utility of the DBT were analyzed, as well as survey results.Measurements and Main Results: Forty-four arrests occurred during the study period.Debriefing was performed after 26 of 44 (59%) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events, of which 22 of 26 (85%) were recorded using the DBT and four without the DBT.Return of spontaneous circulation did not significantly affect the use of the DBT (p = 0.753). Most events in which debriefing was not performed occurred outside of business hours (13/18; 72%). The most frequent positive debriefing comments related to cooperation/coordination within the team (22/167; 13%). The most frequent negative debriefing comments concerned equipment issues (36/167; 22%). Of the action points generated, 57% (34/60) were directed at equipment use/availability. Teams reported that emergency drugs were appropriately administered in 21 of 22 (95%) cases. In contrast, closed loop communication was reportedly only used during 6 of 22 (27%) events.The hospital survey response rate was 56 of 338 (17%) clinical staff, of whom 37 of 56 (66%) agreed or strongly agreed that debriefing had improved team performance during CPR. Overall, 33 of 56 (60%) staff felt that the DBT had improved the debriefing process at the hospital. However, 3 of 56 (5%) staff members felt that they were unable to state their opinions in a blame-free environment during debriefing.Conclusions: Implementation of a DBT enabled formal identification of strengths and training needs of resuscitation teams, and its implementation was viewed positively by the majority of hospital staff. However, further refinement of the tool and prospective studies evaluating its efficacy in improving outcome are warranted.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%