ArticleAEM education and training2021
Staff perceptions of the implementation of a trauma video review program at a level I trauma center.
Article in AEM education and training, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Changes in multidisciplinary perceptions of trauma video review following implementation of a novel program: let us go to the tape.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- Trauma video review: how long do we curb our enthusiasm?Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Article
- High-impact technical and patient management tips from the 2024 AAST Continuous Certification Course: preperitoneal pelvic packing, trauma video review, video-assisted thoracic surgery for retained hemothorax, and laparoscopic common bile duct exploration.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2025Review
- Staff perceptions of the implementation of a trauma video review program at a level I trauma center.AEM education and training · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSuccessful implementation of any new technology requires extensive engagement with front-line staff. We explored the perceptions of emergency department and trauma staff about a trauma video review program (TVR) prior to implementation of the first such program in Canada at our level I trauma center.
methodsWe conducted semi-structured individual interviews and in situ small group interviews with 35 multidisciplinary ED and trauma staff members of a teaching and research hospital in Toronto, Canada. We sought maximum variation in the sample of purposively selected participants. Interviews were recorded with audiotapes or detailed field notes, transcribed verbatim, coded, and analyzed using standard thematic analysis techniques.
resultsParticipants expressed overall support for the concept of TVR, but there is a core sense of unease that influenced overall staff perceptions. Despite several departmental presentations, very few participants actually had a solid understanding of how the TVR worked. Many were apprehensive about their own professional privacy, deeply concerned about vulnerable patients being filmed without consent, and questioned how video data would be used. Despite significant hesitancy, ED and trauma staff identified positive opportunities that TVR could bring, including providing an evidence base for quality improvement.
conclusionsTVR is an evolving approach to evaluate quality and patient safety in the trauma bay. As such it brings with it natural concerns and apprehension from staff regarding privacy, confidentiality, and how data will be captured and used. There is opportunity for these types of concerns to be addressed with a robust knowledge translation plan and engagement of staff throughout the implementation process.
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.