3.9 Article

Impact of stress on resident performance in simulated trauma scenarios

Journal

JOURNAL OF TRAUMA AND ACUTE CARE SURGERY
Volume 72, Issue 2, Pages 497-503

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/TA.0b013e31821f84be

Keywords

Stress; residents; performance; cortisol

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND: Training and practice in medicine are inherently stressful. The effects of stress on performance in clinical situations are poorly understood. The purpose of this study was to examine the stress responses and clinical performance of residents during low and high stress (HS) simulated trauma resuscitations. METHODS: Thirteen emergency medicine and general surgery residents were evaluated in HS and low stress (LS) trauma resuscitation simulations. Subjective and physiologic (heart rate, salivary cortisol) responses were measured at baseline and in response to the scenarios. Performance was assessed with global rating and checklist scores of technical performance, time to record critical information, and the Anesthesia Non-Technical Skills tool. Postscenario recall was assessed with the completion of a standardized trauma history form. RESULTS: Postscenario subjective stress and cortisol levels were higher in the HS scenario compared with the LS scenario (p < 0.05). Checklist performance scores and postscenario recall were significantly lower in the HS compared with the LS condition (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In trainees, some aspects of performance and immediate recall appear to be impaired in complex clinical scenarios in which they exhibit elevated subjective and physiologic stress responses. The findings of this study highlight a potential threat to patient safety and demand further investigation. Future studies should strive to further elucidate the effects of stress on specific components of performance and investigate ways to reduce its negative impact. (J Trauma. 2012; 72: 497-503. Copyright (C) 2012 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available