Improving the position of resuscitation team leader with simulation (IMPORTS); a pilot cross-sectional randomized intervention study.

BACKGROUND: Leadership and teamwork are important contributory factors in determining cardiac resuscitation performance and clinical outcome. We aimed to determine whether fixed positioning of the resuscitation team leader (RTL) relative to the patient influences leadership qualities during cardiac resuscitation using simulation. METHODS: A cross-sectional randomized intervention study over 12 months' duration was conducted in university hospital simulation lab. ACLS-certified medical doctors were assigned to run 2 standardized simulated resuscitation code as RTL from a head-end position (HEP) and leg-end position (LEP). They were evaluated on leadership qualities including situational attentiveness (SA), errors detection (ED), and decision making (DM) using a standardized validated resuscitation-code-checklist (RCC). Performance was assessed live by 2 independent raters and was simultaneously recorded. RTL self-perceived performance was compared to measured performance. RESULTS: Thirty-four participants completed the study. Mean marks for SA were 3.74 (SD ±â€Š0.96) at HEP and 3.54 (SD ±â€Š0.92) at LEP, P = .48. Mean marks for ED were 2.43 (SD ±â€Š1.24) at HEP and 2.21 (SD ±â€Š1.14) at LEP, P = .40. Mean marks for DM were 4.53 (SD ±â€Š0.98) at HEP and 4.47 (SD ±â€Š0.73) at LEP, P = .70. The mean total marks were 10.69 (SD ±â€Š1.82) versus 10.22 (SD ±â€Š1.93) at HEP and LEP respectively, P = .29 which shows no significance difference in all parameters. Twenty-four participants (71%) preferred LEP for the following reasons, better visualization (75% of participants); more room for movement (12.5% of participants); and better communication (12.5% of participants). RTL's perceived performance did not correlate with actual performance CONCLUSION:: The physical position either HEP or LEP appears to have no influence on performance of RTL in simulated cardiac resuscitation. RTL should be aware of the advantages and limitations of each position.

Effectiveness of teaching automated external defibrillators use using a traditional classroom instruction versus self-instruction video in non-critical care nurses.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and retention of learning automated external defibrillator (AED) usage taught through a traditional classroom instruction (TCI) method versus a novel self instructed video (SIV) technique in non-critical care nurses (NCCN). METHODS: A prospective single-blind randomized study was conducted over 7 months (April-October 2014) at the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Center, Kuala Lampur, Malaysia. Eighty nurses were randomized into either TCI or SIV instructional techniques. We assessed knowledge, skill and confidence level at baseline, immediate and 6-months post-intervention. Knowledge and confidence were assessed via questionnaire; skill was assessed by a calibrated and blinded independent assessor using an objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) method. RESULTS: Pre-test mean scores for knowledge in the TCI group was 10.87 ± 2.34, and for the SIV group was 10.37 ± 1.85 (maximum achievable score 20.00); 4.05 ± 2.87 in the TCI and 3.71 ± 2.66 in the SIV (maximum score 11.00) in the OSCE evaluation and 9.54 ± 3.65 in the TCI and 8.56 ± 3.47 in the SIV (maximum score 25.00) in the individual's personal confidence level. Both methods increased the mean scores significantly during immediate post-intervention (0-month). At 6-months, the TCI group scored lower than the SIV group in all aspects 11.13 ± 2.70 versus 12.95 ± 2.26 (p=0.03) in knowledge, 7.27 ± 1.62 versus 7.68 ± 1.73 (p=0.47) in the OSCE, and 16.40 ± 2.72 versus 18.82 ± 3.40 (p=0.03) in confidence level. CONCLUSION: In NCCN's, SIV is as good as TCI in providing the knowledge, competency, and confidence in performing AED defibrillation.