Abdominal Pain, Allergic Reaction, Altered Mental Status, Asthma Acute, Bradycardia, Burns, Cardiac Arrest, Chest Pain, COPD Exacerbation Acute, Diabetic Ketoacidosis, Fever, Hyperglycemic Hyperosmolar Nonketotic Syndrome, Pneumonia, Poisoning, Pulmonary Edema - Acute, Seizures, Shock, Shortness of Breath, Syncope, Tachycardia, Trauma, Vertigo
Conditions
Brief summary
The study will systematically evaluate how an emergency manual-a collection of checklists and fact sheets-affects the performance of resuscitation teams during the management of priority one patients in an emergency department.
Detailed description
Simulation-based studies indicate that crisis checklist use improves management of patients with critical conditions in the emergency department (ED). This six-month-long study prospectively evaluates a digital emergency manual-a collection of crisis checklists and fact sheets-during the management of priority 1 patients in the Skåne University Hospital at Lund's ED.
Interventions
OTHEREmergency Manual
Collection of crisis checklists and fact sheets
Sponsors
Region Skane
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Consecutive priority 1 patients managed in the resuscitation room of Skåne University Hospital at Lund's Emergency Department
Exclusion criteria
* None
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Degree of indication of interventions performed thanks to Do-Confirm Emergency Manual use | 1 hour | The primary outcome measures are the proportions of interventions performed thanks to Do-Confirm EM use graded as indicated, of neutral relevance, and not indicated. |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Team's subjective evaluation of Emergency Manual value | 1 hour | The team's subjective evaluation of the EM's value is recorded prior to the logging out from the EM using a Likert scale of 1 to 6. |
| Degree of indication of interventions that might have been performed had the Emergency Manual been used | 1 hour | Fifty patients that presented during the six-month period preceding EM implementation, are identified. These 50 patients are selected based on matching to the 50 patients where the EM was used, using age, presenting complaint and relevant co-morbidities. In addition, fifty patients where the EM was not used during the pilot study period are also identified based on the same matching process. The EM is accessed to determine whether additional interventions would have been performed, had the EM been used. All interventions-those actually performed as well as those that might have been performed had the EM been used-are then assessed for degree of indication by three external reviewers. |
| Structured interviews | Up to 8 weeks | Teams can electronically request contact with the investigators to report specific events related to EM use. If so, the following data is extracted during a structured interview: * patient age, sex, presenting complaint and suspected diagnosis * seniority of the physician initially in charge of the case * events or concerns relating to EM use * mode of EM use (Do-Confirm, Read-Do, Sampling) and sections relevant to the case * personnel's assessment of the impact of the EM on patient care * personnel's assessment of impact of the EM on team members and teamwork * personnel's suggestions for EM improvement |
Contacts
Primary ContactEric Dryver, MD
Backup ContactUlf Ekelund, MD PhD
Outcome results
None listed