MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Board 373 - Research Abstract High-Fidelity Simulation Results in Improvement of Clinicians Performance in the Management of Massive Hemorrhage Cases (Submission #64)

2013· article· en· W2325824918 on OpenAlexaff
Arielle Lévy, Géraldine Pettersen, A Sansregret, France Gauvin, Sandra Lesage, Nancy Robitaille

Bibliographic record

VenueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in Healthcare · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTrauma and Emergency Care Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDebriefingMedicineProtocol (science)Observational studyAuditMedical emergencyPatient safetyEmergency medicineHealth careMedical education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction/Background A massive haemorrhage can be a rare but serious complication of paediatric trauma and obstetrical cases. In order to optimize the management of massive haemorrhages, a protocol was implemented at our centre. However, recent audits showed that necessary improvements were to be made to many aspects of its application. Our objective was to evaluate the application of a massive hemorrhage protocol and the ability to work in interdisciplinary teams using simulation and targeted training. We also aimed to evaluate confidence levels of different team members to apply the protocol and to hold their role in an interdisciplinary team during a crisis situation. Methods Prospective observational study held at the simulation lab and at the blood bank of a tertiary mother-child health care facility in 2012. Participants were nurses, respiratory therapists, orderlies, anesthetists, obstetricians, pediatric emergency physicians, intensivists and hematologists, as well as blood bank technologists. Pediatric emergency/intensive care and obstetrical/anesthesia teams were submitted to high-fidelity (HF) simulated pediatric trauma and post-partum massive hemorrhage scenarios respectively (SimbabyTM (Laerdal) and NoelleTM (Gaumard)). Blood bank technologists were videotaped and telephone conversations between them and participants at the simulation lab were recorded for review. If hematologists were consulted, they were called back by the blood bank chief technologist and asked to answer questions relevant to the application of the massive hemorrhage protocol (MHP). Each participant was asked to hold their usual role in an interdisciplinary team. Scenarios were developed, programmed and run by experts in each field. Targeted training consisted of a debriefing session and a presentation reviewing the MHP and teamwork skills. Documents on MHP, as well as a key article on crisis resource management were distributed during the first session in order to prepare for the post session two weeks later. Confidence questionnaires were filled out during both sessions. All sessions were videotaped and four blinded independent trained raters assessed the performances. Raters were blinded to the pre/post phase and were not involved in the study. For the application of the massive hemorrhage protocol performances, raters used a checklist derived from the original protocol by experts in the field. For the ability to work in teams, raters used the Mayo High Performance Teamwork Scale. Blood bank technologists were evaluated using a checklist derived by transfusion experts rating necessary steps for preparing and delivering blood products in cases of massive haemorrhages. Scores on performances of the application of the protocol, as well as teamwork performances were recorded. Means and standard deviations of scores for performances were calculated for each scenario. Pre and post training scores were compared using an ANOVA test to assess differences in means. Descriptive statistics of items on the confidence questionnaire were calculated prior to and following training. To assess differences in confidence levels, a Mann Whitney test was used. An alpha of 0.05 was set for all statistics. Results A total of 62 healthcare professionals involved in 8 interdisciplinary teams (4 obstetrics/anaesthesia and 4 paediatric emergency/intensive care) as well as 8 blood bank technologists and 8 haematologists participated in the study. Following training, scores for the application of the protocol improved by 24% (95% CI 10-39). Scores for the ability to work in teams improved by 17% (95% CI 6-28). Confidence levels in the ability to apply the protocol and work in teams improved by 13% (95% CI 11-16). Notable were confidence improvements in leadership and communication skills as well as role and task assignment. Conclusion Targeted training involving HF simulated scenarios and protocol review improved participant ability to apply the massive haemorrhage protocol and to work in interdisciplinary teams. Confidence levels improved among participants from all disciplines. Disclosures None.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.591
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.129
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.318 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSimulation in Healthcare The Journal of the Society for Simulation in HealthcareSame topicTrauma and Emergency Care StudiesFrench-language works237,207