ArticleCureus2024
Healthcare Professional's Knowledge of the Systemic ABCDE Approach: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- The ABCDE approach in critically ill patients: A scoping review of assessment tools, adherence and reported outcomes.Resuscitation plus · 2024Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and aim Assessing the knowledge of healthcare professionals regarding the Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is crucial since it prioritizes the initial assessment and treatment of patients who are critically ill, regardless of the underlying cause or their age. Since adherence requires knowledge, this study aimed to evaluate the knowledge level of the ABCDE approach among healthcare professionals. Methods This cross-sectional study among healthcare professionals was performed from April to August 2023 in Taif City, Saudi Arabia. The study included healthcare professionals employed in departments exposed to patients with critical illnesses and excluded those from other specialties and individuals from outside Taif City. Data was collected via Google Forms using a previously validated questionnaire designed to assess the ABCDE approach knowledge among healthcare professionals. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS, version 26. Results The study included 242 healthcare professionals with a mean (SD) age of 35.77 (9.93) years. About half of the participants were female (52.5%) nurses (50.8%) and had been working in intensive care units (ICU) and neonate intensive care units (NICU) (41.4%). The mean (SD) of the participants' working experience was 9.28 (8.295) years. The overall mean test score was 52.94 % (SD 16.27). The mean knowledge score among males was significantly higher than females (56.37% vs. 49.85%, respectively) (p-value= 0.001). The mean knowledge score was significantly higher among medical specialists and residents (63.308% and 55.67%) than among nurses (46.34%) (p-value <0.001). Attending an advanced trauma life support course and theoretical lecture significantly impacted the total knowledge score among the participants (p-values= 0.001 and <0.001, respectively). The total knowledge significantly increased with age (r: 0.265, p-value <0.001). Years of experience correlated with total knowledge score; with increasing years of experience, the total knowledge was significantly increased (r: 0.248, p-value <0.001). Conclusion The ABCDE approach is a valuable tool for the initial examination and treatment of patients in acute medical and surgical emergencies. The findings indicate that there is a need for further awareness programs and training on the ABCDE approach, as the total knowledge score among healthcare professionals was found to be suboptimal. Further research is needed to assess the association between knowledge level and clinical performance in different healthcare settings within Saudi Arabia.
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.