Clinical Triggers and Vital Signs Influencing Crisis Acknowledgment and Calls for Help by Anesthesiologists: A Simulation-Based Observational Study

L.H. Matern, R. Gardner, J.W. Rudolph, R. Nadelberg, C. Buléon, R.D. Minehart
{"title":"Clinical Triggers and Vital Signs Influencing Crisis Acknowledgment and Calls for Help by Anesthesiologists: A Simulation-Based Observational Study","authors":"L.H. Matern, R. Gardner, J.W. Rudolph, R. Nadelberg, C. Buléon, R.D. Minehart","doi":"10.1097/01.aoa.0001016008.59181.d9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"(J Clin Anesth. 2023;90:111235 |https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111235)\n Swiftly mobilizing resources in perioperative emergencies is crucial for patient survival, with anesthesiologists typically bearing this responsibility. Recognizing the urgency, the call for help is emphasized through formalized “stat” calls. However, the timing of seeking assistance remains subjective, posing a challenge. While empirical evidence highlights blood pressure thresholds indicative of harm, ambiguity surrounds terms like “early” in crisis management. An assumption that anesthesiologists must possess all answers hinders timely collaboration, impacting patient care. Factors affecting crisis acknowledgment, especially in simulated settings, were explored among MOCA course participants. Acknowledgment, a pivotal step in emergency response, was scrutinized alongside potential differences between active participants and observers. This investigation seeks to expose vulnerabilities in ACRM implementation, guiding future studies on crisis management in perioperative settings.","PeriodicalId":19432,"journal":{"name":"Obstetric Anesthesia Digest","volume":"92 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Obstetric Anesthesia Digest","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/01.aoa.0001016008.59181.d9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

(J Clin Anesth. 2023;90:111235 |https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111235) Swiftly mobilizing resources in perioperative emergencies is crucial for patient survival, with anesthesiologists typically bearing this responsibility. Recognizing the urgency, the call for help is emphasized through formalized “stat” calls. However, the timing of seeking assistance remains subjective, posing a challenge. While empirical evidence highlights blood pressure thresholds indicative of harm, ambiguity surrounds terms like “early” in crisis management. An assumption that anesthesiologists must possess all answers hinders timely collaboration, impacting patient care. Factors affecting crisis acknowledgment, especially in simulated settings, were explored among MOCA course participants. Acknowledgment, a pivotal step in emergency response, was scrutinized alongside potential differences between active participants and observers. This investigation seeks to expose vulnerabilities in ACRM implementation, guiding future studies on crisis management in perioperative settings.
影响麻醉医师识别危机和呼救的临床触发因素和生命体征:基于模拟的观察研究
(J Clin Anesth. 2023;90:111235 |https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinane.2023.111235)在围术期紧急情况下迅速调动资源对患者的存活至关重要,而麻醉医师通常承担着这一责任。由于认识到紧迫性,通过正式的 "stat "呼叫来强调求助。然而,寻求帮助的时机仍然是主观的,这就带来了挑战。虽然经验证据突出表明血压阈值会造成危害,但危机管理中的 "早期 "等术语却含糊不清。麻醉医师必须掌握所有答案的假设阻碍了及时合作,影响了患者护理。我们在 MOCA 课程参与者中探讨了影响危机确认的因素,尤其是在模拟环境中。确认是应急响应中的关键步骤,与积极参与者和旁观者之间的潜在差异一起被仔细研究。这项调查旨在揭示 ACRM 实施过程中的薄弱环节,为今后围术期环境下的危机管理研究提供指导。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信