Background The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is widely recommended and taught in many resuscitation courses. This study assessed the adherence to the ABCDE algorithm and whether this was affected by the instruction method used to teach this approach. Methods Randomized controlled trial in which simulation was used as investigational method. Between June 2017 and January 2018, neonatal healthcare providers routinely participated in simulated neonatal advanced life support (NALS) scenarios, using a high-fidelity manikin. They were randomly assigned to a video-based instruction (intervention group) or a conventional lecture (control group) as the method of instruction. One blinded researcher evaluated the adherence to the ABCDE approach on video with an assessment tool specifically designed and tested for this study. The primary outcomes were: 1) the overall adherence and 2) the between-group difference in individual adherence to the ABCDE approach, both expressed as a percentage score. Secondary outcomes were: 1) the scores of each profession category (nurses, neonatal ward clinicians, fellows/neonatologists) and 2) the scores for the separate domains (A, B, C, D, and E) of the algorithm. Results Seventy-two participants were assessed. Overall mean (SD) percentage score (i.e. overall adherence) was 31.5% (19.0). The video-based instruction group (28 participants) adhered better to the ABCDE approach than the lecture group (44 participants), with mean (SD) scores of 38.8% (18.7) and 27.8% (18.2), respectively (p = 0.026). The difference in adherence between both groups could mainly be attributed to differences in the adherence to domain B (p = 0.023) and C (p = 0.007). Neonatal ward clinicians (39.9% (18.2)) showed better adherence than nurses (25.0% (15.2)), independent of the study group (p = 0.010). Conclusions Overall adherence to the ABCDE algorithm was rather low. Video-based instruction resulted in better adherence to the ABCDE approach during NALS training than lecturing. Trial registration ISRCTN registry, trial ID ISRCTN95998973, retrospectively registered on October 13th, 2020.

Background The Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a universal, priority-based approach for the assessment and treatment of critically ill patients. Although the ABCDE approach is widely recommended, adherence in practice appears to be suboptimal. The cause of this non-compliance is unknown. As knowledge is a prerequisite for adherence, the aim of this study was to assess healthcare professionals’ knowledge of the ABCDE approach. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at the Radboud University Medical Center, the Netherlands. A digital multiple-choice assessment tool of the ABCDE approach was developed by an expert panel through a mini-Delphi method and validated by performing test item statistics and an expert-novice comparison. The validated test was sent to healthcare professionals (nurses, residents and medical specialists) of the participating departments: Anaesthesiology, Paediatrics, Emergency Department and the Neonatal, Paediatric and Adult Intensive Care Units. Primary outcome was the test score, reflecting individual level of knowledge. Descriptive statistics, regression analysis and ANOVA were used. Results Test validation showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.71 and an expert-novice comparison of 91.9% (standard deviation (SD) 9.1) and 72.4% (15.2) respectively (p < 0.001). Of 954 eligible participants, 240 filled out the questionnaire. The mean (SD) test score (% of correct answers) was 80.1% (12.2). Nurses had significantly lower scores (74.9% (10.9)) than residents (92.3% (7.5)) and medical specialists (88.0% (8.6)) (p < 0.001). The Neonatal Intensive Care Unit (75.9% (12.6)) and Adult Intensive Care Unit (77.4% (11.2)) had significantly lower scores than Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (85.6% (10.6)), Emergency Department (85.5% (10.4)) and Anaesthesiology (85.3% (10.6)) (p < 0.05). Younger participants scored higher than older participants (−0.30% (-0.46;-0.15) in test score/year increase in age). Conclusion Scores of a validated knowledge test regarding the ABCDE approach vary among healthcare professionals caring for critically ill patients. Type of department, profession category and age had a significant influence on the test score. Further research should relate theoretical knowledge level to clinical practice. Tailored interventions to increase ABCDE-related knowledge are recommended.

No abstract

No abstract

this is the study protocol for a scoping review regarding the ABCDE approach used by health care professionals . The main question we aim to answer is: What are the reported outcomes related to application or teaching of the ABCDE approach by healthcare professionals in a hospital setting?