An evaluation of three methods of in-hospital cardiac arrest educational debriefing: The cardiopulmonary resuscitation debriefing study

Abstract

Copies of full items can be used for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-profit purposes without prior permission or charge. Provided that the authors, title and full bibliographic details are credited, a hyperlink and/or URL is given for the original metadata page and the content is not changed in any way. Conflicts of interestThe authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Word count: 2802 Acknowledgements:We gratefully acknowledge the support of Dr Richard Field, Dr Joyce Yeung and Mr Mehboob Chilwan in extracting data from defibrillator records. AbstractBackground: The use of cardiac arrest educational debriefing has been associated with

Mechanical versus manual chest compressions in the treatment of in-hospital cardiac arrest patients in a non-shockable rhythm: a randomised controlled feasibility trial (COMPRESS-RCT)

“…In forming this view, the group considered factors such as the nature of the intervention being studied and the balance of benefit and harm in providing information at a time of bereavement. This reflects the approach that has been adopted in similar trials [8, 16, 17]. …”

Education, Implementation, and Teams

“…There were no studies comparing briefing as an intervention. For debriefing, data from 3 in-hospital observational before-and-after studies (2 in adults 112,317 and 1 in pediatrics 100 ), involving a total of 591 patients, and data from 1 out-of-hospital observational beforeand-after study in adults, 318 involving a total of 124 patients, was analyzed. All studies included data-driven debriefing interventions using CPR quality metrics such as chest compression depth, chest compression rate, or CCF.…”

“…For the critical outcome of survival with favorable neurological outcome, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for inconsistency, indirectness, and imprecision) from 2 observational studies 100,317 including 367 patients. One study 100 demonstrated significantly increased survival with favorable neurological outcome from the use of the intervention compared with no debriefing, while the other 317 demonstrated no significant improvement from the use of the intervention compared with no debriefing.…”

“…For the critical outcome of survival to discharge, we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for indirectness and imprecision) from 4 observational studies 100,112,317,318 including 715 patients. One study 100 reported a trend toward improved survival to hospital discharge from the use of the intervention compared with no debriefing, while 3 other studies 112,317,318 demonstrated no improvement in survival to hospital discharge from the use of the intervention compared with no debriefing. Meta-analysis demonstrates a significant effect from the use of debriefing compared with no debriefing on this outcome (RR, 1.41; 95% CI, 1.03À1.93; P = 0.03; I 2 = 0%).…”

“…For the critical outcome of chest compression rate (mean rate), we identified very low-certainty evidence (downgraded for inconsistency and indirectness) from 4 observational studies 100,112,317,318 including 715 patients. Two studies 112,318 reported improved mean chest compression rate from the use of the interventions compared with no debriefing, while a third study 317 demonstrated no improvement in mean chest compression rate from the use of the intervention compared with no debriefing.…”