Using Emergency Manuals During Interprofessional Crisis Management: Are There Unintended Consequences?
Completed · Not applicable
Conditions studied: Safety Issues
In brief
Despite increasing interest in emergency manuals (EMs), relatively little is known about their effectiveness and limitations in the perioperative setting. Prior studies have been limited in that they evaluated EMs using crises that were tailor-made to match one of their chapters, and there has been minimal participation by attending surgeons and other experienced personnel. The Investigators' preliminary experience suggests less-than-expected EM use and suboptimal usage, which may be due to the simulation scenario falling "halfway between" two different chapters of the EM, raising the question of whether limitations were due to the EM content, team dynamics, or inadequate training in the EM use. In this randomized, prospective, two-center simulation-based study, the investigators utilize clinical scenarios specifically designed to observe the patterns of use and to test the limitations of the EMs. The hypothesis is that EMs may not improve, and may even worsen, clinical performance in situations that do not exactly match a specific chapter of that EM, and that EM usage patterns will identify both strengths and limitations of the tools and its implementation. The participating healthcare providers consisting of experienced surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses will be randomized into four experimental groups, each exposed to either a "specific" or "non-specific" simulation scenario, along with or without the availability of the EM. The major experimental endpoint will be how many "critical actions" each team performs, scored as the percentage of actions taken from a pre-determined list. The goal of this study is to improve EM content and use by understanding its limitations during interprofessional team-training simulations and to study whether EMs enhance or detract from clinical performance. This is especially a concern in situations that do not exactly match a specific chapter of the EM, such as cases that are vague and represent multi-factorial diagnostic dilemmas such as hypotension and hypoxemia. The ultimate goal is to strengthen patient safety by providing guidance for improving EM content, use, and training protocols.
Key facts
- Study ID
- NCT03006549
- Run by
- Brigham and Women's Hospital
- People needed
- 50
- Starts
- 2015-01-10
- Expected to finish
- 2019-05-13
- Last updated by the study team
- 2019-08-05
Who can join
Age: 18 and older. Sex: any. Healthy volunteers: accepted.
You may qualify if…
- Healthcare providers (anesthesiologists, surgeons, nurses) participating in the crisis management curriculum at each participating simulation site
You may not qualify if…
- Those unwilling to be recorded during the simulation scenario
Where it is running
- Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center — Boston, Massachusetts, United States
- Brigham and Women's Hospital — Boston, Massachusetts, United States
- Massachusetts General Hospital — Boston, Massachusetts, United States
Full record on ClinicalTrials.gov
Trial information comes from ClinicalTrials.gov and is refreshed daily. TrialsForMe does not provide medical care and does not run the studies it lists.