4.6 Article

Clinical triggers and vital signs influencing crisis acknowledgment and calls for help by anesthesiologists: A simulation-based observational study

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA
Volume 90, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111235

Keywords

Simulation; Medical education; Crisis resource management; Anesthesiology; Perioperative medicine

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study aimed to identify vital signs and qualitative factors prompting crisis acknowledgment by anesthesiologists in perioperative emergencies. The researchers found that anesthesiologists generally recognized crises when blood pressure reached a certain threshold or when there was significant deterioration. It is suggested that crisis management education should focus on triggers for seeking help.
Study objective: In a perioperative emergency, anesthesiologists must acknowledge the unfolding crisis promptly, call for timely assistance, and avert patient harm. We aimed to identify vital signs and qualitative factors prompting crisis acknowledgment and to compare responses between observers and participants in simulation.Design: Prospective, simulation-based, observational study.Setting: An anesthesia crisis resource management course at a freestanding simulation center. Subjects: Sixty attending anesthesiologists from a variety of practice settings. Interventions: In each case, a primary anesthesiologist in charge (PAIC) managed a simulated patient undergoing a uniformly scripted sequence of perioperative anaphylaxis and called for help from another anesthesiologist when a crisis began. Anesthesiologist observers (AOs) viewed the case separately and recorded times of crisis onset. Measurements: Simulation footage was reviewed by investigators for patient vital signs and participant behaviors at times of crisis acknowledgment, with the call for help as an explicit proxy for PAIC crisis acknowledgment. These factors were categorized, and group-level data were compared.Results: Nineteen PAICs and 41 AOs were included. Clinicians acknowledged crises around a mean arterial pressure (MAP) of 65 mmHg and oxygen saturation of 94% as anaphylactic shock progressed. PAICs acknowledged crises at a higher respiratory rate than AOs (20 vs. 18 breaths/min, p = 0.038). Other vitals and timing of crisis acknowledgment did not differ between PAICs and AOs. Nearly half of all participants (45%) identified crises at MAP <65 mmHg. Timing of crisis acknowledgment varied widely (range: 421 s).Conclusions: Despite overall heterogeneity in clinical performance, anesthesiologists acknowledged crises per standard definitions of hypotension. Thresholds for crisis acknowledgment did not significantly differ between PAICs and AOs, suggesting minimal effect from active care responsibility. Many indicated crises at MAP <65 mmHg or after significant deterioration, risking failure-to-rescue events. We suggest that crisis management instruction should address triggers for requesting help.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available