Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Kasper Glerup Lauridsen, Ichiro Watanabe, Bo Løfgren, Adam Cheng, Jordan Duval-Arnould, Elizabeth A. Hunt, Grace L. Good, Dana Niles, Robert A. Berg, Akira Nishisaki, Vinay M. Nadkarni

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events. Methods: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales. Results: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15−30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98% (80%,100%). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)73-80
Number of pages8
JournalResuscitation
Volume147
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2020

Fingerprint

Teach-Back Communication
Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation
Thorax
Intubation
Communication
Frustration
Consensus
United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Practice Guidelines
Shock
Physicians

Keywords

  • Advanced life support
  • Communication
  • Delphi technique
  • In-hospital cardiac arrest
  • Nontechnical skills
  • Simulation

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Emergency Medicine
  • Emergency
  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Lauridsen, K. G., Watanabe, I., Løfgren, B., Cheng, A., Duval-Arnould, J., Hunt, E. A., ... Nadkarni, V. M. (2020). Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation, 147, 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.013

Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. / Lauridsen, Kasper Glerup; Watanabe, Ichiro; Løfgren, Bo; Cheng, Adam; Duval-Arnould, Jordan; Hunt, Elizabeth A.; Good, Grace L.; Niles, Dana; Berg, Robert A.; Nishisaki, Akira; Nadkarni, Vinay M.

In: Resuscitation, Vol. 147, 01.02.2020, p. 73-80.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lauridsen, KG, Watanabe, I, Løfgren, B, Cheng, A, Duval-Arnould, J, Hunt, EA, Good, GL, Niles, D, Berg, RA, Nishisaki, A & Nadkarni, VM 2020, 'Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation', Resuscitation, vol. 147, pp. 73-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.013
Lauridsen, Kasper Glerup ; Watanabe, Ichiro ; Løfgren, Bo ; Cheng, Adam ; Duval-Arnould, Jordan ; Hunt, Elizabeth A. ; Good, Grace L. ; Niles, Dana ; Berg, Robert A. ; Nishisaki, Akira ; Nadkarni, Vinay M. / Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In: Resuscitation. 2020 ; Vol. 147. pp. 73-80.
@article{032c510cb7c54c278563f24297a26ebb,
title = "Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation",
abstract = "Aim: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events. Methods: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales. Results: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15−30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98{\%} (80{\%},100{\%}). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.",
keywords = "Advanced life support, Communication, Delphi technique, In-hospital cardiac arrest, Nontechnical skills, Simulation",
author = "Lauridsen, {Kasper Glerup} and Ichiro Watanabe and Bo L{\o}fgren and Adam Cheng and Jordan Duval-Arnould and Hunt, {Elizabeth A.} and Good, {Grace L.} and Dana Niles and Berg, {Robert A.} and Akira Nishisaki and Nadkarni, {Vinay M.}",
year = "2020",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.013",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "147",
pages = "73--80",
journal = "Resuscitation",
issn = "0300-9572",
publisher = "Elsevier Ireland Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation

AU - Lauridsen, Kasper Glerup

AU - Watanabe, Ichiro

AU - Løfgren, Bo

AU - Cheng, Adam

AU - Duval-Arnould, Jordan

AU - Hunt, Elizabeth A.

AU - Good, Grace L.

AU - Niles, Dana

AU - Berg, Robert A.

AU - Nishisaki, Akira

AU - Nadkarni, Vinay M.

PY - 2020/2/1

Y1 - 2020/2/1

N2 - Aim: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events. Methods: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales. Results: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15−30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98% (80%,100%). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.

AB - Aim: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events. Methods: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales. Results: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15−30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98% (80%,100%). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication. Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.

KW - Advanced life support

KW - Communication

KW - Delphi technique

KW - In-hospital cardiac arrest

KW - Nontechnical skills

KW - Simulation

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85077643966&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85077643966&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.013

DO - 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.013

M3 - Article

C2 - 31891790

AN - SCOPUS:85077643966

VL - 147

SP - 73

EP - 80

JO - Resuscitation

JF - Resuscitation

SN - 0300-9572

ER -