Completeness and accuracy of digital charting vs paper charting in simulated pediatric cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives

To determine if data collected through digital charting are more complete and more accurate compared to traditional paper-based charting during simulated pediatric cardiac arrest.

Methods

We performed a single-center simulation-based randomized controlled trial. Participants were randomized to a novel handheld digital charting device (intervention group) or to the standard resuscitation paper chart (control group). Participants documented two 15-min simulated pediatric cardiac arrest scenarios. We compared the charting completeness between the two groups. Completeness score (primary outcome) was established by calculating a completeness score for each group based on a list of pre-determined critical tasks. Charting accuracy (secondary outcome) was compared between the two groups, defined as the time interval between the real-time task performance and charted time.

Results

Charting data from 34 simulated cardiac arrest events were included in the analysis (n = 18 intervention; n = 16 control). The paper charting group had a higher completeness score (median (IQR) paper vs digital: 72.0% (66.4–76.9%) vs 65.0% (58.5–66.4%), p = 0.015). For accuracy, the digital charting group was superior to the paper charting group for all pre-established critical tasks.

Conclusion

Compared to paper-based charting, digital charting group captured more critical tasks during pediatric simulated resuscitation and was more accurate in the time intervals between real-time tasks performance and charted time. For tasks charted, paper-based charting was significantly more complete and more detailed during simulated pediatric cardiac arrest.