4.6 Article

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

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA
卷 90, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

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

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据