ArticleSpartan medical research journal2021
Implementation of a Rapid Post-Code Debrief Quality Improvement Project in a Community Emergency Department Setting.
Article in Spartan medical research journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Team debriefing in the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study of a hospital-wide clinical event debriefing program and a novel qualitative model to analyze debriefing content.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2022Article
- Well-being in the Intensive Care Unit: Looking Beyond COVID-19.Anesthesiology clinics · 2022Review
- Multidisciplinary Timely Debrief Sessions after Cardiac Arrests and Endotracheal Intubations in the Pediatric Emergency Department.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextRegular debriefing has been associated with improved resource utilization and measurable improvements in team performance in crisis situations. While Emergency Department (ED) staff have often stated that they would like to be provided a formal debriefing model after "code blue" and similar events, few EDs have such protocols in place.
methodsThe study consisted of two data collection processes: (1) completion of a 7-item survey distributed pre-intervention, 6-months post-intervention, and 1-year post-intervention, and (2) completion of a Rapid Post-Code Debriefing form. Overall responses were measured on a possible 0-10 scale and individual responses were tracked. The debrief process was triggered by one of four criteria and followed a standard format using a readily available form.
resultsA total of 178 pre- and post-debriefing protocol implementation survey responses were collected throughout the duration of the study. Of those, 79 (44.4%) were pre-protocol response surveys. The post-protocol responses were comprised of 51 (51.5%) six month and 48 (48.5%) 12-month surveys. The average overall satisfaction with code-response performance increased significantly following the implementation of the debriefing protocol, from M=6.661, SD=2.028 to M=7.90, SD=1.359 (independent t-test = 5.069, p<0.001). There was a statistically significant decrease regarding how respondents felt emotionally supported after a code by their staff, (Pearson Chi Square 14.977, df 4, p = 0.005).
conclusionDuring this study, implementation of a post-code debriefing resulted in increased overall satisfaction with how codes had been conducted and there was a significant change in how staff felt in regards to code team leaders and an expectation of "returning to work." However, there a noted overall decrease in perceptions of feeling supported by other staff involved during the code. Further studies in both community and academic-based ED settings are needed to further explore these complex relationships.
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.