ArticlePediatric quality & safety
Multidisciplinary Timely Debrief Sessions after Cardiac Arrests and Endotracheal Intubations in the Pediatric Emergency Department.
Article in Pediatric quality & safety. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multidisciplinary Timely Debrief Sessions after Cardiac Arrests and Endotracheal Intubations in the Pediatric Emergency Department.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
- Response to Letter Regarding "Multidisciplinary Timely Debrief Sessions after Cardiac Arrests and Endotracheal Intubations in the Pediatric Emergency Department".Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Multidisciplinary clinical debriefs are structured discussions following critical events to assess performance, identify improvement opportunities, and provide team support. Despite known benefits, debriefs are underused. We aimed to increase debrief completion following pediatric emergency department (ED) cardiac arrests and endotracheal intubations. The primary outcome was the percentage of critical events with a completed debrief form. To assess potential workflow disruptions, we assessed 2 balancing measures: room-to-provider and door-to-provider times among Emergency Severity Index level 1 and 2 patients. Methods: A key driver diagram guided targeted interventions. We implemented a standardized Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) debrief form using a plus-delta framework with scripted prompts, accessible via quick response codes throughout the ED. As part of the intervention design, debriefs were encouraged within 30 minutes of the event and were designed to last 7 minutes or less. Educational initiatives included staff meetings, email reminders, newsletters, signage, and designated nursing champions. We used statistical process control to assess changes over time. Results: Debrief completion increased from 4% to 52% during 15 months, showing special-cause variation. Median room-to-provider times remained unchanged. Median door-to-provider times decreased during the intervention period. Conclusions: Multiple interventions significantly increased the use of structured debriefing without adversely affecting patient flow. Structured debriefing is both feasible and sustainable in high-acuity ED settings, particularly when supported by ongoing education and active team engagement.
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.