ArticleBMJ open2023
Clinical use of an emergency manual by resuscitation teams and impact on performance in the emergency department: a prospective mixed-methods study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05649891 (Clinical Use of an Emergency Manual by Resuscitation Teams and Impact on Performance in the Emergency Department), which is not on this map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
Clinical Use of an Emergency Manual by Resuscitation Teams and Impact on Performance in the Emergency Department
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSimulation-based studies indicate that crisis checklist use improves management of patients with critical conditions in the emergency department (ED). An interview-based study suggests that use of an emergency manual (EM)-a collection of crisis checklists-improves management of clinical perioperative crises. There is a need for in-depth prospective studies of EM use during clinical practice, evaluating when and how EMs are used and impact on patient management. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 6-month long study prospectively evaluates a digital EM during management of priority 1 patients in the Skåne University Hospital at Lund's ED. Resuscitation teams are encouraged to use the EM after a management plan has been derived ('Do-Confirm'). The documenting nurse activates and reads from the EM, and checklists are displayed on a large screen visible to all team members. Whether the EM is activated, and which sections are displayed, are automatically recorded. Interventions performed thanks to Do-Confirm EM use are registered by the nurse. Fifty cases featuring such interventions are reviewed by specialists in emergency medicine blinded to whether the interventions were performed prior to or after EM use. All interventions are graded as indicated, of neutral relevance or not indicated. The primary outcome measures are the proportions of interventions performed thanks to Do-Confirm EM use graded as indicated, of neutral relevance, and not indicated. A secondary outcome measure is the team's subjective evaluation of the EM's value on a Likert scale of 1-6. Team members can report events related to EM use, and information from these events is extracted through structured interviews. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study is approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (Dnr 2022-01896-01). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and abstracts submitted to national and international conferences to disseminate our findings. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05649891.
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.