Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26186567›Full record

Trial reportCritical care medicine2015

The System-Wide Effect of Real-Time Audiovisual Feedback and Postevent Debriefing for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest: The Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality Improvement Initiative.

Keith Couper, Peter K Kimani, Benjamin S Abella, Mehboob Chilwan, Matthew W Cooke, Robin P Davies, Richard A Field, Fang Gao, Sarah Quinton, Nigel Stallard and 3 more

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIComparative StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Critical care medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Job Satisfaction of Nurses in the Context of Clinical Supervision: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. [Basic life support].Notfall & rettungsmedizin · 2021
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Keith Couper1Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom. 2Warwick Medical School, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom. 3Center for Resuscitation Science, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. 4School of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, College of Medical and Dental Science, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
Peter K Kimani
Benjamin S Abella
Mehboob Chilwan
Matthew W Cooke
Robin P Davies
Richard A Field
Fang Gao
Sarah Quinton
Nigel Stallard
Sarah Woolley
Gavin D Perkins
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Quality Improvement Initiative Collaborators

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-1207-14246Department of Health PDF-2014-07-061
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the effect of implementing real-time audiovisual feedback with and without postevent debriefing on survival and quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation quality at in-hospital cardiac arrest.

designA two-phase, multicentre prospective cohort study.

settingThree UK hospitals, all part of one National Health Service Acute Trust. PATIENTS: One thousand three hundred and ninety-five adult patients who sustained an in-hospital cardiac arrest at the study hospitals and were treated by hospital emergency teams between November 2009 and May 2013.

interventionsDuring phase 1, quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation and patient outcomes were measured with no intervention implemented. During phase 2, staff at hospital 1 received real-time audiovisual feedback, whereas staff at hospital 2 received real-time audiovisual feedback supplemented by postevent debriefing. No intervention was implemented at hospital 3 during phase 2. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe primary outcome was return of spontaneous circulation. Secondary endpoints included other patient-focused outcomes, such as survival to hospital discharge, and process-focused outcomes, such as chest compression depth. Random-effect logistic and linear regression models, adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, were used to analyze the effect of the interventions on study outcomes. In comparison with no intervention, neither real-time audiovisual feedback (adjusted odds ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.31-1.22; p=0.17) nor real-time audiovisual feedback supplemented by postevent debriefing (adjusted odds ratio, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.35-1.21; p=0.17) was associated with a statistically significant improvement in return of spontaneous circulation or any process-focused outcome. Despite this, there was evidence of a system-wide improvement in phase 2, leading to improvements in return of spontaneous circulation (adjusted odds ratio, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.06-3.30; p=0.03) and process-focused outcomes.

conclusionsImplementation of real-time audiovisual feedback with or without postevent debriefing did not lead to a measured improvement in patient or process-focused outcomes at individual hospital sites. However, there was an unexplained system-wide improvement in return of spontaneous circulation and process-focused outcomes during the second phase of the study.

Indexed as

FeedbackQuality ImprovementAdultAgedAge FactorsCardiopulmonary ResuscitationCohort StudiesConfidence IntervalsFemaleHeart ArrestHospital MortalityHumansInpatientsLogistic ModelsMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID26186567
PMCPMC4603366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 OpenQuestion graph.