Why are critical event checklists not always used in the perioperative setting?: A retrospective survey.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES PLoS ONE Pub Date : 2025-02-28 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0314774
Anna Clebone, P Allan Klock, Ellen Y Choi, Avery Tung
{"title":"Why are critical event checklists not always used in the perioperative setting?: A retrospective survey.","authors":"Anna Clebone, P Allan Klock, Ellen Y Choi, Avery Tung","doi":"10.1371/journal.pone.0314774","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>During surgery and anesthesia, life-threatening critical events, including cardiac arrest, may occur. By facilitating recall of key management steps, suggesting diagnostic possibilities, and providing dose and drug information, cognitive aids may improve clinician performance during such events. In actual clinical practice, however, cognitive aids may be available but inconsistently used. One possibility explaining aid non-use during critical events is a lack of familiarity with how cognitive aids may be helpful. We hypothesized that introduction of critical event cognitive aids along with implementation of cognitive aid resources would change the quantitative incidence of cognitive aid use and qualitative reasons for aid non-use. We surveyed members of an academic anesthesia department before and after implementation of critical event cognitive aid resources.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>All anesthesia clinicians at a single academic medical center were surveyed. Participants were surveyed both pre- and post-training with a focused program to introduce critical event cognitive aid resources. Incidences of and reasons for cognitive aid use and non-use were collected and analyzed. Survey responses were compared pre- and post-implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate was 64.5%. One-hundred eighty-five reasons for non-use were collected before the focused program and 149 after. Overall, 80% of clinicians had encountered at least one critical event during the study period and use of cognitive aids during all reported events was 7%. Six categories of reasons for non-use were identified: 'Not Available', 'Not Needed', 'No Time', 'Another Person In Charge', 'Used In Another Way', 'No Reason Given'. After implementation, a decrease in the number of respondents who cited availability and who cited 'another person running crisis,' as reasons for non-use was observed (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implementation of cognitive aids for critical events in an academic anesthesia environment improved the perception of cognitive aid availability and decreased the number of subjects who chose to not use the aid due to another person running the crisis response. Looking at the multiple reasons for cognitive aid non-use may guide implementation, training, and design.</p>","PeriodicalId":20189,"journal":{"name":"PLoS ONE","volume":"20 2","pages":"e0314774"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11870359/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS ONE","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0314774","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: During surgery and anesthesia, life-threatening critical events, including cardiac arrest, may occur. By facilitating recall of key management steps, suggesting diagnostic possibilities, and providing dose and drug information, cognitive aids may improve clinician performance during such events. In actual clinical practice, however, cognitive aids may be available but inconsistently used. One possibility explaining aid non-use during critical events is a lack of familiarity with how cognitive aids may be helpful. We hypothesized that introduction of critical event cognitive aids along with implementation of cognitive aid resources would change the quantitative incidence of cognitive aid use and qualitative reasons for aid non-use. We surveyed members of an academic anesthesia department before and after implementation of critical event cognitive aid resources.

Methods: All anesthesia clinicians at a single academic medical center were surveyed. Participants were surveyed both pre- and post-training with a focused program to introduce critical event cognitive aid resources. Incidences of and reasons for cognitive aid use and non-use were collected and analyzed. Survey responses were compared pre- and post-implementation.

Results: The response rate was 64.5%. One-hundred eighty-five reasons for non-use were collected before the focused program and 149 after. Overall, 80% of clinicians had encountered at least one critical event during the study period and use of cognitive aids during all reported events was 7%. Six categories of reasons for non-use were identified: 'Not Available', 'Not Needed', 'No Time', 'Another Person In Charge', 'Used In Another Way', 'No Reason Given'. After implementation, a decrease in the number of respondents who cited availability and who cited 'another person running crisis,' as reasons for non-use was observed (p < 0.001).

Conclusions: Implementation of cognitive aids for critical events in an academic anesthesia environment improved the perception of cognitive aid availability and decreased the number of subjects who chose to not use the aid due to another person running the crisis response. Looking at the multiple reasons for cognitive aid non-use may guide implementation, training, and design.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS ONE
PLoS ONE 生物-生物学
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
5.40%
发文量
14242
审稿时长
3.7 months
期刊介绍: PLOS ONE is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication. PLOS ONE welcomes reports on primary research from any scientific discipline. It provides: * Open-access—freely accessible online, authors retain copyright * Fast publication times * Peer review by expert, practicing researchers * Post-publication tools to indicate quality and impact * Community-based dialogue on articles * Worldwide media coverage
期刊最新文献
Acceptability of long-acting antiretroviral therapy among people living with HIV who use drugs in Vancouver, Canada: A qualitative study. The use of tranexamic acid for post-tonsillectomy hemorrhage: A scoping review protocol. Time-consistent robust investment-reinsurance strategy with common shock dependence under CEV model. Why are critical event checklists not always used in the perioperative setting?: A retrospective survey. Barriers to and facilitators of rehabilitation according to socio-economic status, after acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19: A qualitative study in the RECOVIDS cohort.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1