Dataset Information

ABCDE approach to victims by lifeguards: How do they manage a critical patient? A cross sectional simulation study.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Decision-making in emergencies is a multifactorial process based on the rescuer, patient, setting and resources. The eye-tracking system is a proven method for assessing decision-making processes that have been used in different fields of science. Our aim was to evaluate the lifeguards' capacity to perform the ABCDE (Airway-Breathing-Circulation-Disability-Exposure) approach when facing a simulated critically ill-drowned victim.

Methods

A cross-sectional simulation study was designed to assess the skills and sequence of the ABCDE approach by 20 professional lifeguards. They had to assess a victim and act according to his/her clinical status by following the ABCDE primary assessment approach. The two kinds of variables were recorder: those related to the quality of each step of the ABCDE approach and the visual behaviour using a portable eye-movement system. The eye-tracking system was the Mobile Eye system (Bedford, USA).

Results

None of the study participants were able to complete correctly the ABCDE approach. Lifeguards spent more time in the Circulation step: Airway (15.5±11.1 s), Breathing (25.1±21.1 s), Circulation (44.6±29.5 s), Disability (38.5±0.7 s). Participants spent more time in viewpoints considered as important (65.5±17.4 s) compared with secondary ones (34.6±17.4 s, p = 0.008). This was also represented in the percentage of visual fixations (fixations in important viewpoints: 63.36±15.06; fixation in secondary viewpoints: 36.64±15.06; p = 0.008).

Conclusion

Professional lifeguards failed to fully perform the ABCDE sequence. Evaluation by experts with the help of eye-tracking technology detected the lifeguards' limitations in the assessment and treatment of an eventual critically ill victim. Such deficits should be considered in the design and implementation of lifeguards' training programmes.

SUBMITTER: Fernandez-Mendez F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6490899 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a universal, priority-based approach for the assessment and treatment of critically ill patients. Although the ABCDE approach is widely recommended, adherence in practice appears to be suboptimal. The cause of this non-compliance is unknown. As knowledge is a prerequisite for adherence, the aim of this study was to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge of the ABCDE approach.MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at the Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands. A digital multiple-choice assessment tool of the ABCDE approach was developed by an expert panel through a mini-Delphi method and validated by performing test item statistics and an expert-novice comparison. The validated test was sent to healthcare professionals (nurses, residents and medical specialists) of the participating departments: Anaesthesiology, Paediatrics, Emergency Department and the Neonatal, Paediatric and Adult Intensive Care Units. Primary outcome was the test score, reflecting individual level of knowledge. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis and ANOVA were used.ResultsTest validation showed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.71 and an expert-novice comparison of 91.9% (standard deviation (SD) 9.1) and 72.4% (15.2) respectively (p < 0.001). Of 954 eligible participants, 240 filled out the questionnaire. The mean (SD) test score (% of correct answers) was 80.1% (12.2). Nurses had significantly lower scores (74.9% (10.9)) than residents (92.3% (7.5)) and medical specialists (88.0% (8.6)) (p < 0.001). The Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (75.9% (12.6)) and Adult Intensive Care Unit (77.4% (11.2)) had significantly lower scores than Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (85.6% (10.6)), Emergency Department (85.5% (10.4)) and Anaesthesiology (85.3% (10.6)) (p < 0.05). Younger participants scored higher than older participants (-0.30% (-0.46;-0.15) in test score/year increase in age).ConclusionScores of a validated knowledge test regarding the ABCDE approach vary among healthcare professionals caring for critically ill patients. Type of department, profession category and age had a significant influence on the test score. Further research should relate theoretical knowledge level to clinical practice. Tailored interventions to increase ABCDE-related knowledge are recommended.

Project description:BackgroundThe Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is widely recommended and taught in many resuscitation courses. This study assessed the adherence to the ABCDE algorithm and whether this was affected by the instruction method used to teach this approach.MethodsRandomized controlled trial in which simulation was used as investigational method. Between June 2017 and January 2018, neonatal healthcare providers routinely participated in simulated neonatal advanced life support (NALS) scenarios, using a high-fidelity manikin. They were randomly assigned to a video-based instruction (intervention group) or a conventional lecture (control group) as the method of instruction. One blinded researcher evaluated the adherence to the ABCDE approach on video with an assessment tool specifically designed and tested for this study. The primary outcomes were: 1) the overall adherence and 2) the between-group difference in individual adherence to the ABCDE approach, both expressed as a percentage score. Secondary outcomes were: 1) the scores of each profession category (nurses, neonatal ward clinicians, fellows/neonatologists) and 2) the scores for the separate domains (A, B, C, D, and E) of the algorithm.ResultsSeventy-two participants were assessed. Overall mean (SD) percentage score (i.e. overall adherence) was 31.5% (19.0). The video-based instruction group (28 participants) adhered better to the ABCDE approach than the lecture group (44 participants), with mean (SD) scores of 38.8% (18.7) and 27.8% (18.2), respectively (p = 0.026). The difference in adherence between both groups could mainly be attributed to differences in the adherence to domain B (p = 0.023) and C (p = 0.007). Neonatal ward clinicians (39.9% (18.2)) showed better adherence than nurses (25.0% (15.2)), independent of the study group (p = 0.010).ConclusionsOverall adherence to the ABCDE algorithm was rather low. Video-based instruction resulted in better adherence to the ABCDE approach during NALS training than lecturing.Trial registrationISRCTN registry, trial ID ISRCTN95998973 , retrospectively registered on October 13th, 2020.

Project description:Introduction Physicians involved in medical errors (MEs) can experience loss of self-esteem and negative psychological experiences. They are called “second victims” of the ME. Aims To i) describe the profile, the types and the severity of MEs, and ii) explore the psychological impact on “second victims” to better understand how they cope. Methods It was a cross sectional retrospective study conducted from March to August 2018. All physicians working at Farhat Hached and Sahloul University hospitals were asked to complete a questionnaire about their possible MEs. The impact of MEs was evaluated using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) (scoring, 0–88) (subscales ranges; intrusion, (0–32); avoidance, (0–32); hyperarousal, (0–24)). The diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was made when the total IES-R score exceeded 33. The coping strategies were evaluated using Ways of Coping Checklist Revised (WCC-R) scale (scoring, problem-focused, (10–40); emotion focused, (9–36); seeking social support, (8–32)). Results Among 393 responders, 268(68.2%) reported MEs. Wrong diagnosis (40.5%), faulty treatment (34.6%), preventive errors (13.5%) and faulty communication (6.4%) were the main frequent types of MEs. The most common related causes of MEs were inexperience (47.3%) and job overload (40.2%). The physicians’ median (range) score of the IES-R was 19(0–69). According to the IES-R score, the most frequent psychological impacts were median (range): intrusion, 7(0–28) and avoidance symptoms, 7(0–24). PTSD symptoms affected 23.5% of physicians. Female sex and serious MEs were identified as predictors of PTSD. On the WCC-R check list, coping was balanced between the three coping strategies median (range), problem focused, 28.5(10–40); emotion-focused, 24(9–36) and seeking social support 21(8–32). Conclusion There is a relatively high impact of ME within these North-African university hospital physicians. Coping was balanced within different three strategies as reported worldwide. Physicians adopted more likely constructive changes than defensive ones. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12888-022-04049-0.

Project description:BackgroundRoad injuries are the second-leading cause of disease and injury in the Andean region of South America. Adequate management of road traffic crash victims is important to prevent and reduce deaths and serious long-term injuries.ObjectiveTo evaluate the promptness of health care services provided to those injured in road traffic incidents (RTIs) and the satisfaction with those services during the pre-hospital and hospital periods.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study with active surveillance to recruit participants in emergency departments at eight health care facilities in three Peruvian cities: a large metropolitan city (Lima) and two provincial cities (an urban center in the southern Andes and an urban center in the rainforest region), between August and September 2009. The main outcomes of interest were promptness of care, measured by time between injury and each service offered, as well as patient satisfaction measured by the Service Quality (SERVQUAL) survey. We explored the association between outcomes and city, type of health care facility (HCF), and type of provider.ResultsWe recruited 644 adults seeking care for RTIs. This active surveillance strategy yielded 34% more events than anticipated, suggesting under-reporting in traditional registries. Median response time between a RTI and any care at a HCF was 33 minutes overall and only 62% of participants received professional care during the initial "golden" hour after the RTI. After adjustment for various factors, there was strong evidence of higher global dissatisfaction levels among those receiving care at public HCFs compared to private ones (odds ratio (OR) 5.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.88-13.54). This difference was not observed when provincial sites were compared to Lima (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.42-4.70).ConclusionsResponse time to RTIs was adequate overall, though a large proportion of RTI victims could have received more prompt care. Overall, dissatisfaction was high, mainly at public institutions indicating much need for improvements in service provision.