Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31039154›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

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

Felipe Fernández-Méndez, Martín Otero-Agra, Cristian Abelairas-Gómez, Nieves María Sáez-Gallego, Antonio Rodríguez-Núñez, Roberto Barcala-Furelos

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Felipe Fernández-MéndezCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Martín Otero-AgraFaculty of Education and Sport Sciences, REMOSS Network Research, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
Cristian Abelairas-GómezCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-1056-7778
Nieves María Sáez-GallegoFaculty of Education, University of Castilla la Mancha, Toledo, Spain.
Antonio Rodríguez-NúñezCLINURSID Research Group, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Spain.
Roberto Barcala-FurelosFaculty of Education and Sport Sciences, REMOSS Network Research, University of Vigo, Pontevedra, Spain.
Universidade de Santiago de Compostela · ESInstituto de Investigación Sanitaria de Santiago · ESUniversidade de Vigo · ESUniversity of Castilla-La Mancha · ES

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDecision-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.

methodsA 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).

resultsNone 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).

conclusionProfessional 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.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessDrowningFirst AidAdultCross-Sectional StudiesEye MovementsFemaleHumansMaleProcess Assessment, Health CareRespirationYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31039154
PMCPMC6490899
OpenAlexW2913566804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.