Observational studyBMC emergency medicine2026
Emergency department eCPR: an exploratory observational study of human factors.
Observational study in BMC emergency medicine, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExtracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (eCPR) is a low-frequency, high-acuity intervention requiring technical skills and coordinated team performance. This exploratory study observed eCPR cases for elements of teamwork, provider stress, and environmental factors in the Emergency Department (ED). Reid's conceptual framework domains for human factors in healthcare teams were used as an analytical lens for interpreting the data.
methodsAn exploratory two-phase study was conducted across two eCPR hospital sites over 32 months, with an initial simulation and non-eCPR observation phase used to refine study methods. A subsequent eCPR case phase used convenience sampling of adult cardiac arrests to observe actual eCPR events. Following consent, eCPR team members allocated to key roles (such as team leadership and cannulation) were observed in detail during each case. Patient outcomes included Utstein measures and eCPR timings. Provider outcomes included mobile heart rate monitoring, salivary cortisol, and validated psychometric measures. Teamwork was assessed using the Mayo High-Performance Team Score (MHPTS). Environmental outcomes included measurements of ambient noise levels, team headcounts, and observations of eCPR workflow.
resultsEighteen providers were observed during six eCPR events. The mean case age was 44.7 years and most patients presented with a shockable rhythm. System features consistently observed in the eCPR cases included predefined roles, individuals assigned to crowd control, and team leader summaries. Causal interpretations are limited by the small sample size and risk of observational bias. Within these limitations, individual provider salivary cortisol measurements were higher after eCPR copared with paired baseline samples. Teamwork scores (MHPTS) were in a moderate to high range (median = 12; IQR 10-13) and environmental observations reflected noisy ED spaces and crowding (headcount median = 20; IQR 18-29).
conclusionThis exploratory study found that human factors outcomes can be feasibly assessed during ED eCPR. Predefined roles and structured communication were observed and warrant further study.
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.