4.5 Article

Impact of a CPR feedback device on healthcare provider workload during simulated cardiac arrest

期刊

RESUSCITATION
卷 130, 期 -, 页码 111-117

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2018.06.035

关键词

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation; Workload; Quality; Resuscitation; Chest compressions

资金

  1. Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
  2. Canadian Institute for Health Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We aimed to describe the differences in workload between team leaders and CPR providers during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest, to evaluate the impact of a CPR feedback device on provider workload, and to describe the association between provider workload and the quality of CPR. Methods: We conducted secondary analysis of data from a randomized trial comparing CPR quality in teams with and without use of a real-time visual CPR feedback device [1]. Healthcare providers (team leaders and CPR providers) completed the NASA Task Load Index survey after participating in a simulated cardiac arrest scenario. The effect of provider roles and real-time feedback on workload were compared with independent t-tests. Results: Team leaders reported higher levels of mental demand, temporal demand, performance-related workload and frustration, while CPR providers reported comparatively higher physical workload. CPR providers reported significantly higher average workload (control 58.5 vs. feedback 62.3; p = 0.035) with real-time feedback provided compared to the group without feedback. Providers with high workloads (average score> 60) had an increased percentage of time with guideline-compliant CPR depth versus those with low workloads (average score < 60) (p = 0.034). Conclusions: Healthcare providers reported high workloads during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest. Physical and mental workloads differed based on provider role. CPR providers using a CPR feedback device reported increased average workloads. The quality of CPR improved with higher reported physical workloads.

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

4.5
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