ArticleBMC emergency medicine2022
Healthcare professionals' knowledge of the systematic ABCDE approach: a cross-sectional study.
Article in BMC emergency medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of adaptive scaffolding on performance, cognitive load and engagement in game-based learning: a randomized controlled trial.BMC medical education · 2024Trial
- [Consensus recommendations on the diagnosis and treatment of hyperkalemia of the Austrian Society of Nephrology 2026].Wiener klinische Wochenschrift · 2026Review
- Recurrent myocardial infarction and adherence to secondary prevention strategies among adults with coronary artery disease in rural Aluva, South India: a nested case-control study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Article
- The Scope of Nurses' Assessment of Deteriorating Patients in Coronary Care Units: A Mixed Methods Study.Journal of clinical nursing · 2025Article
- Assessment of ABCDE approach knowledge among residents and interns in multiple Egyptian hospitals, a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- The ABCDE approach in critically ill patients: A scoping review of assessment tools, adherence and reported outcomes.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
- Hospital nurses and physicians' experiences practicing patient safety work to recognize deteriorating patients: a qualitative study.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Article
- Healthcare Professional's Knowledge of the Systemic ABCDE Approach: A Cross-Sectional Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Physicians' Knowledge of the Systematic ABCDE Approach in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Nursing Students' Perceptions of the Ease of Use and Usefulness of Immersive Virtual Reality Simulation: A Mixed-Methods Study.SAGE open nursingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a universal, priority-based approach for the assessment and treatment of critically ill patients. Although the ABCDE approach is widely recommended, adherence in practice appears to be suboptimal. The cause of this non-compliance is unknown. As knowledge is a prerequisite for adherence, the aim of this study was to assess healthcare professionals' knowledge of the ABCDE approach.
methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted at the Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands. A digital multiple-choice assessment tool of the ABCDE approach was developed by an expert panel through a mini-Delphi method and validated by performing test item statistics and an expert-novice comparison. The validated test was sent to healthcare professionals (nurses, residents and medical specialists) of the participating departments: Anaesthesiology, Paediatrics, Emergency Department and the Neonatal, Paediatric and Adult Intensive Care Units. Primary outcome was the test score, reflecting individual level of knowledge. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis and ANOVA were used.
resultsTest validation showed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.71 and an expert-novice comparison of 91.9% (standard deviation (SD) 9.1) and 72.4% (15.2) respectively (p < 0.001). Of 954 eligible participants, 240 filled out the questionnaire. The mean (SD) test score (% of correct answers) was 80.1% (12.2). Nurses had significantly lower scores (74.9% (10.9)) than residents (92.3% (7.5)) and medical specialists (88.0% (8.6)) (p < 0.001). The Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (75.9% (12.6)) and Adult Intensive Care Unit (77.4% (11.2)) had significantly lower scores than Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (85.6% (10.6)), Emergency Department (85.5% (10.4)) and Anaesthesiology (85.3% (10.6)) (p < 0.05). Younger participants scored higher than older participants (-0.30% (-0.46;-0.15) in test score/year increase in age).
conclusionScores of a validated knowledge test regarding the ABCDE approach vary among healthcare professionals caring for critically ill patients. Type of department, profession category and age had a significant influence on the test score. Further research should relate theoretical knowledge level to clinical practice. Tailored interventions to increase ABCDE-related knowledge are recommended.
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.