Skip to content

Using Emergency Manuals During Interprofessional Crisis Management: Are There Unintended Consequences?

Using Emergency Manuals During Interprofessional Crisis Management: Are There Unintended Consequences?

Status
Completed
Phases
NA
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT03006549
Acronym
EM
Enrollment
50
Registered
2016-12-30
Start date
2015-01-10
Completion date
2019-05-13
Last updated
2019-08-05

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Safety Issues

Keywords

Emergency Manual, Crisis Checklist

Brief summary

Despite increasing interest in emergency manuals (EMs), relatively little is known about their effectiveness and limitations in the perioperative setting. Prior studies have been limited in that they evaluated EMs using crises that were tailor-made to match one of their chapters, and there has been minimal participation by attending surgeons and other experienced personnel. The Investigators' preliminary experience suggests less-than-expected EM use and suboptimal usage, which may be due to the simulation scenario falling halfway between two different chapters of the EM, raising the question of whether limitations were due to the EM content, team dynamics, or inadequate training in the EM use. In this randomized, prospective, two-center simulation-based study, the investigators utilize clinical scenarios specifically designed to observe the patterns of use and to test the limitations of the EMs. The hypothesis is that EMs may not improve, and may even worsen, clinical performance in situations that do not exactly match a specific chapter of that EM, and that EM usage patterns will identify both strengths and limitations of the tools and its implementation. The participating healthcare providers consisting of experienced surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses will be randomized into four experimental groups, each exposed to either a specific or non-specific simulation scenario, along with or without the availability of the EM. The major experimental endpoint will be how many critical actions each team performs, scored as the percentage of actions taken from a pre-determined list. The goal of this study is to improve EM content and use by understanding its limitations during interprofessional team-training simulations and to study whether EMs enhance or detract from clinical performance. This is especially a concern in situations that do not exactly match a specific chapter of the EM, such as cases that are vague and represent multi-factorial diagnostic dilemmas such as hypotension and hypoxemia. The ultimate goal is to strengthen patient safety by providing guidance for improving EM content, use, and training protocols.

Interventions

BEHAVIORALEmergency Manual (Crisis Checklist)

participants will have an Emergency Manual available to them during the crisis simulation scenario.

Sponsors

Anesthesia Patient Safety Foundation
CollaboratorOTHER
Massachusetts General Hospital
CollaboratorOTHER
Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center
CollaboratorOTHER
Brigham and Women's Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
DOUBLE (Subject, Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

* Healthcare providers (anesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses) participating in the crisis management curriculum at each participating simulation site

Exclusion criteria

* Those unwilling to be recorded during the simulation scenario

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
Correct Diagnosis identified during the simulation by the participants through a grading scale toolthrough scenario completion, an average of 1 hour

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
Clinical actions taken during the scenario evaluated by a grading scale toolthrough scenario completion, an average of 1 hour

Countries

United States

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026