Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37362021›Full record

ArticlePorto biomedical journal

Practice of debriefing of critical events: a survey-based cross-sectional study of Portuguese anesthesiologists.

Daniel Teles, Mariana Silva, Joana Berger-Estilita, Helder Pereira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Porto biomedical journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Daniel TelesDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Centre of São João, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0653-6290
Mariana SilvaDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Centre of São João, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0074-8575
Joana Berger-EstilitaInstitute for Medical Education, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8695-4264
Helder PereiraDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University Hospital Centre of São João, Porto, Portugal.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5921-8093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Debriefing is an essential procedure for identifying medical errors, improving communication, reviewing team performance, and providing emotional support after a critical event. This study aimed to describe the current practice and limitations of debriefing and gauge opinions on the best timing, effectiveness, need for training, use of established format, and expected goals of debriefing among Portuguese anesthesiologists. Methods: We performed a national cross-sectional online survey exploring the practice of anesthesiologists' debriefing practice after critical events in Portuguese hospitals. The questionnaire was distributed using a snowball sampling technique from July to September 2021. Data were descriptively and comparatively analyzed. Results: We had replies from 186 anesthesiologists (11.3% of the Portuguese pool). Acute respiratory event was the most reported type of critical event (96%). Debriefing occurred rarely or never in 53% of cases, 59% of respondents needed more training in debriefing, and only 4% reported having specific tools in their institutions to carry it out. There was no statistical association between having a debriefing protocol and the occurrence of critical events ( Conclusions: Portuguese anesthesiologists know that debriefing is an essential process that increases patient safety, but among those surveyed, there is a need for an adequate debriefing culture or practice. Trial registration: Research registry 7741 (https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home).

Indexed as

anesthesiacritical eventdebriefinghealth care CRMPortugal

Identifiers

PMID37362021
PMCPMC10289546

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.