ArticleResuscitation plus2021
Can hospital adult code-teams and individual members perform high-quality CPR? A multicenter simulation-based study incorporating an educational intervention with CPR feedback.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-efficacy and Communication in Health Personnel After Simulation Training in Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Quasi-experimental Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsA multicenter simulation-based research study to assess the ability of interprofessional code-teams and individual members to perform high-quality CPR (HQ-CPR) at baseline and following an educational intervention with a CPR feedback device.
methodsFive centers recruited ten interprofessional teams of AHA-certified adult code-team members with a goal of 200 participants. Baseline testing of chest compression (CC) quality was measured for all individuals. Teams participated in a baseline simulated cardiac arrest (SCA) where CC quality, chest compression fraction (CCF), and peri-shock pauses were recorded. Teams participated in a standardized HQ-CPR and abbreviated TeamSTEPPS® didactic, then engaged in deliberate practice with a CPR feedback device. Individuals were assessed to determine if they could achieve ≥80% combined rate and depth within 2020 AHA guidelines. Teams completed a second SCA and CPR metrics were recorded. Feedback was disabled for assessments except at one site where real-time CPR feedback was the institutional standard. Linear regression models were used to test for site effect and paired
resultsData from 184 individuals and 45 teams were analyzed. Baseline HQ-CPR mean score across all sites was 18.5% for individuals and 13.8% for teams. Post-intervention HQ-CPR mean score was 59.8% for individuals and 37.0% for teams. There was a statistically significant improvement in HQ-CPR mean scores of 41.3% (36.1, 46.5) for individuals and 23.2% (17.1, 29.3) for teams (
conclusionCode-teams and individuals struggle to perform HQ-CPR but show improvement after deliberate practice with feedback as part of an educational intervention. Only one site that incorporated real-time CPR feedback devices routinely achieved ≥80% HQ-CPR.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.