Performance in Trauma Resuscitation at an Urban Tertiary Level I Pediatric Trauma Center

Abstract

Primary and secondary surveys are frequently performed incompletely and inefficiently regardless of level of training or type of training program. There is no difference in measured performance among different types of residency programs. The impact of trauma resuscitation education on improved survey performance should be studied prospectively.

Filming for auditing of real-life emergency teams: a systematic review

“…A further eight studies were identified by checking the references lists. Among these 165 studies, 50 were eligible according to the inclusion criteria (online supplementary table S1),4 5 8 13 21–66 and five of these evaluated the impact of video review in regards to improvement in patient care (PICOS)8 21 23 41 62 (figure 1).…”

“…There were 6 cohort or case–control studies,8 21–23 27 42 27 cross-sectional studies24 25 28 30 33–40 43 44 46 47 49 51–54 56–59 65 66 and 17 case reports or series4 5 13 26 27 29 31 32 45 48 50 55 60–64 (figure 2). There were no trials or protocols of RCTs.…”

“…We identified five categories of team: cardiac arrest team (n=7),41–47 neonatal resuscitation team (n=18),48–65 trauma team (n=15),4 5 8 13 21–31 paediatric trauma team (n=9)32–40 and obstetric emergency team (n=1) 66. The 50 studies were conducted at 30 different hospitals situated in the USA (n=12), Australia (n=1), Europe (n=11) and Asia (n=5) (figure 2).…”

“…Consent was collected in 14 studies. Consent was collected either from all who participated in the video (n=4)26 40 53 66 or in part from either staff or patients (n=10) 48–51 54–58 65. In the majority of the studies, informed consent from the patient could not be obtained before video recording due to the patient’s situation, for example, cardiac arrest or severe trauma.…”

“…To audit the care provided in the video review, four categories of outcomes were identified: teams’ clinical performance (n=34), teams’ technical performance (n=13), teams’ non-technical performance (n=17) and patient outcome (n=14) (figure 2). Teams’ clinical performance consisted of the overall management of the emergency and was assessed in terms of adherence to protocol or guideline 4 5 8 21–28 30 32–45 47 54 55 57 58 62 63 66. Technical performance was assessed for procedures like intubation or chest compression depth 13 46 48 49 51–53 56 59–61 64 65.…”