Cognitive aids in the management of clinical emergencies: a systematic review.

Clinical emergencies can be defined as unpredictable events that necessitate immediate intervention. Safety critical industries have acknowledged the difficulties of responding to such crises. Strategies to improve human performance and mitigate its limitations include the provision and use of cognitive aids, a family of tools that includes algorithms, checklists and decision aids. This systematic review evaluates the usefulness of cognitive aids in clinical emergencies. Following a systematic search of the electronic databases, we included 13 randomised controlled trials, reported in 16 publications. Each compared cognitive aids with usual care in the context of an anaesthetic, medical, surgical or trauma emergency involving adults. Most trials used only clinicians in the development and testing of the cognitive aids, and only some trials provided familiarisation with the cognitive aids before they were deployed. The primary outcome was the completeness of care delivered to the patient. Cognitive aids were associated with a reduction in the incidence of missed care steps from 43.3% to 11% (RR (95%CI) 0.29 (0.15-0.16); p < 0.001), and the quality of evidence was rated as moderate. The use of cognitive aids was related to decreases in the incidence of errors, increases in the rate of correctly performed steps and improvement in the clinical teamwork skills scores, non-technical skills scores, subjective conflict resolution scores and the global assessment of team performance. Cognitive aids had an inconsistent influence on the time to first intervention and time to complete care of the patient's condition. It is possible that this was a reflection of how common or rare the crisis in question was as well as the experience and expertise of the clinicians and team. Sufficient thought should be applied to the development of the content and design of cognitive aids, with consideration of the pre-existing guideline ecosystem. Cognitive aids should be tested before their deployment with adequate clinician and team training.

Go/no-go decision in anaesthesia: wide variation in risk tolerance amongst anaesthetists.

BACKGROUND: The variability in risk tolerance in medicine is not well understood. Parallels are often drawn between aviation and anaesthesia. The aviation industry is perceived as culturally risk averse, and part of preflight checks involves a decision on whether the flight can operate. This is sometimes termed a go/no-go decision. This questionnaire study was undertaken to explore the equivalent go/no-go decision in anaesthesia. We presented anaesthetists with a range of situations in which additional risk might be expected and asked them to decide whether they would proceed with the case. METHODS: An electronic questionnaire was distributed to anaesthetic colleagues of all grades in one National Health Service Trust. Eleven scenarios, all drawn from critical incident data, were presented. Participants were invited to consider whether they would proceed, how they would modify their anaesthetic technique, and to predict whether a colleague with similar experience would make the same decision. Textual responses were analysed qualitatively. RESULTS: The scenario response rate was 28%. Consultants were significantly more likely to proceed than trainees. In no scenario was there absolute agreement over whether to proceed, even in scenarios where national guidelines would suggest a case should be cancelled. Thematic analysis suggested a wide variability in what anaesthetists consider acceptable or professional behaviour. CONCLUSIONS: It is clear that safety decisions cannot be made in isolation and that clinicians must consider operational requirements, such as throughput, when making a go/no-go decision. The level of variability in decision-making was surprising, particularly for scenarios that appeared to go against guidelines.

Role of computed tomography before lumbar puncture: a survey of clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION: It is becoming increasingly common to request computed tomography (CT) to rule out space occupying lesions before lumbar puncture (LP), even in patients with no clinical signs. Imaging trends within a busy district general hospital in Oxfordshire, UK were analysed with results used to clarify when imaging should be considered mandatory. METHOD: A retrospective six month sample was obtained comprising all adults considered for LP. Observed frequencies of abnormal examination findings compared with abnormal investigations were used to determine sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values to assess the validity of using a normal clinical examination as a basis for excluding CT. RESULTS: 64 patients were considered for LP. In total, 58 patients underwent LP, with a single patient receiving two. After an abnormal CT scan, six patients did not undergo a planned LP. In all six of these cases subarachnoid haemorrhage was detected, and in all cases this was considered a probable diagnosis. In no case was an LP precluded by an unsuspected space occupying lesion. Neurological examination showed a sensitivity of 0.72 (0.52 to 0.93), specificity 0.78 (0.64 to 0.91), positive predictive value 0.61 (0.41 to 0.83), and negative predictive value 0.85 (0.73 to 0.97). DISCUSSION: The high sensitivity and negative predictive values support normal neurological examination as an effective predictor of normal CT scan. This permits the recommendation in cases where subarachnoid haemorrhage is not suspected, a CT scan can be avoided provided there are no abnormal findings on physical or fundoscopic examination.