Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37978554›Full record

Trial reportScandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine2023

A simulation-based randomized trial of ABCDE style cognitive aid for emergency medical services CHecklist In Prehospital Settings: the CHIPS-study.

Helena Droege, Heiko Trentzsch, Alexandra Zech, Stephan Prückner, Sebastian Imach

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Helena DroegeDepartment of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), University Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51429, Cologne, Germany.
Heiko TrentzschInstitut Für Notfallmedizin Und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, Schillerstr. 53, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Alexandra ZechInstitut Für Notfallmedizin Und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, Schillerstr. 53, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Stephan PrücknerInstitut Für Notfallmedizin Und Medizinmanagement (INM), Klinikum der Universität München, LMU München, Schillerstr. 53, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Sebastian ImachDepartment of Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery, Cologne-Merheim Medical Center (CMMC), University Witten/Herdecke, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51429, Cologne, Germany. Dr.Imach@gmx.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8879-9050
LMU Klinikum · DEWitten/Herdecke University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChecklists are a powerful tool for reduction of mortality and morbidity. Checklists structure complex processes in a reproducible manner, optimize team interaction, and prevent errors related to human factors. Despite wide dissemination of the checklist, effects of checklist use in the prehospital emergency medicine are currently unclear. The aim of the study was to demonstrate that participants achieve higher adherence to guideline-recommended actions, manage the scenario more time-efficient, and thirdly demonstrate better adherence to the ABCDE-compliant workflow in a simulated ROSC situation.

methodsCHIPS was a prospective randomized case-control study. Professional emergency medical service teams were asked to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation on an adult high-fidelity patient simulator achieving ROSC. The intervention group used a checklist which transferred the ERC guideline statements of ROSC into the structure of the 'ABCDE' mnemonic. Guideline adherence (performance score, PS), utilization of process time (items/minute) and workflow were measured by analyzing continuous A/V recordings of the simulation. Pre- and post-questionnaires addressing demographics and relevance of the checklist were recorded. Effect sizes were determined by calculating Cohen's d. The level of significance was defined at p < 0.05.

resultsTwenty scenarios in the intervention group (INT) and twenty-one in the control group (CON) were evaluated. The average time of use of the checklist (CU) in the INT was 6.32 min (2.39-9.18 min; SD = 2.08 min). Mean PS of INT was significantly higher than CON, with a strong effect size (p = 0.001, d = 0.935). In the INT, significantly more items were completed per minute of scenario duration (INT, 1.48 items/min; CON, 1.15 items/min, difference: 0.33/min (25%), p = 0.001), showing a large effect size (d = 1.11). The workflow did not significantly differ between the groups (p = 0.079), although a medium effect size was shown (d = 0.563) with the tendency of the CON group deviating stronger from the ABCDE than the INT.

conclusionChecklists can have positive effects on outcome in the prehospital setting by significantly facilitates adherence to guidelines. Checklist use may be time-effective in the prehospital setting. Checklists based on the 'ABCDE' mnemonic can be used according to the 'do verify' approach. Team Time Outs are recommended to start and finish checklists.

Indexed as

Cardiopulmonary ResuscitationEmergency Medical ServicesOut-of-Hospital Cardiac ArrestAdultCase-Control StudiesChecklistCognitionEthanolaminesHumansProspective StudiesD 935EthanolaminesABCDE mnemonicABCDE schemeChecklistsMedical simulationOut of hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA)Patient safetyResuscitationReturn of spontaneous circulation (ROSC)

Identifiers

PMID37978554
PMCPMC10655407
OpenAlexW4388763407

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.