ArticleBMJ open quality2020
Promoting hot debriefing in an emergency department.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 50 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementation of a Structured Hot Debrief Tool in a Metropolitan ED: A Quality Improvement Study.Emergency medicine Australasia : EMA · 2026Article
- Better teaching in the intensive care unit: navigating a complex, multi-disciplinary learning environment.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- Enhancing Post-Code Blue Debriefing through Identification and Overcoming Barriers Encountered by Healthcare Practitioners.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2025Article
- Barriers and facilitators for interaction in cardiopulmonary resuscitation teams: a qualitative study.International journal of emergency medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Impact of a debrief tool in acute child and adolescent mental health inpatient units: a centre's experience.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Clinical team debriefing post-critical events: perceptions, benefits, and barriers among learners.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Emergency team competencies: scoping review for the development of a tool to support the briefing and debriefing activities of emergency healthcare providers.Journal of anesthesia, analgesia and critical care · 2023Article
- A success story of clinical debriefings: lessons learned to promote impact and sustainability.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Is Team Resilience More Than the Sum of Its Parts? A Quantitative Study on Emergency Healthcare Teams during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Examining non-technical skills for ad hoc resuscitation teams: a scoping review and taxonomy of team-related concepts.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2021Article
- Emergency clinicians' knowledge, preparedness and experiences of managing COVID-19 during the 2020 global pandemic in Australian healthcare settings.Australasian emergency care · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDebriefing is a process of communication that takes place between a team following a clinical case. Debriefing facilitates discussion of individual and team level performance and identifies points of excellence as well as potential errors made. This helps to develop plans to improve subsequent performance. While the American Heart Association and the UK Resuscitation Council recommend debriefing following every cardiac arrest attended by a healthcare professional, it has not become part of everyday practice. In the emergency department (ED), this is in part attributable to time pressures and workload. Hot debriefing is a form of debriefing which should occur 'there and then' following a clinical event. The aim of this quality improvement project was to introduce hot debriefing to our ED following all cardiac arrests.
methodsA hot debriefing tool was designed following simulated cardiac arrest scenarios and team feedback. This tool was then introduced to the ED for use after all cardiac arrests. The team lead was asked to complete a debrief form. These completed hot debrief forms were collated monthly and compared with the department's cardiac arrest register. Any changes made to cardiac arrest management following hot debriefing were recorded. Qualitative feedback was obtained through questionnaires.
resultsDuring the 6-month study period, 42% of all cardiac arrest cases were followed by a hot debrief. Practice changes were made to resus room equipment, practitioners' non-technical skills and the department's educational activities. 95% of participants felt the hot debriefing tool was of 'just right' duration, 100% felt the process helped with their clinical practice, and 90% felt they benefited psychologically from the process.
conclusionThe introduction of a hot debriefing tool in our department has led to real-world changes to cardiac arrest care. The process benefits participants' clinical practice as well as psychological well-being.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.