ArticleChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Does the Use of an Automated Resuscitation Recorder Improve Adherence to NRP Algorithms and Code Documentation?
Article in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNeonatal resuscitation is guided by Neonatal Resuscitation Program (NRP) algorithms; however, human factors affect resuscitation. Video recordings demonstrate that deviations are common. Additionally, code documentation is prone to inaccuracies. Our long-term hypothesis is that the use of an automated resuscitation recorder (ARR) app will improve adherence to NRP and code documentation; the purpose of this study was to determine its feasibility.
methodsWe performed a simulation-based feasibility study using simulated code events mimicking NRP scenarios. Teams used the app during resuscitation events. We collected data via an initial demographics survey, video recording, ARR-generated code summary and a post-resuscitation survey. We utilized standardized grading tools to assess NRP adherence and the accuracy of code documentation through resuscitation data point (RDP) scoring. We evaluated provider comfort with the ARR via post-resuscitation survey ordinal ratings and open-ended question text mining.
resultsSummary statistics for each grading tool were computed. For NRP adherence, the median was 68% (range 60-76%). For code documentation accuracy and completeness, the median was 77.5% (range 55-90%). When ordinal ratings assessing provider comfort with the app were reviewed, 47% chose "agree" (237/500) and 36% chose "strongly agree" (180/500), with only 0.6% (3/500) answering "strongly disagree". A word cloud compared frequencies of words from the open-ended text question.
conclusionsWe demonstrated the feasibility of ARR use during neonatal resuscitation. The median scores for each grading tool were consistent with passing scores. Post-resuscitation survey data showed that participants felt comfortable with the ARR while highlighting areas for improvement. A pilot study comparing ARR with standard of care is the next step.
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.