Factors influencing anesthesiologistsperceived usefulness of ACRM (Anaesthesia Crisis Resources Management) key points after a combined ACLS (AHA)-ACRM similation training

IF 0.1 Q4 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Fabrizio De Biasi, Carlotta Olivei Maddalena, A. Vergallo, G. Fiore, R. Balagna, Paolo Donato, Loris Cristofoli, P. Caironi, F. Marinangeli
{"title":"Factors influencing anesthesiologistsperceived usefulness of ACRM (Anaesthesia Crisis Resources Management) key points after a combined ACLS (AHA)-ACRM similation training","authors":"Fabrizio De Biasi, Carlotta Olivei Maddalena, A. Vergallo, G. Fiore, R. Balagna, Paolo Donato, Loris Cristofoli, P. Caironi, F. Marinangeli","doi":"10.56126/73.2.09","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The factors that may contribute to learners’ perception about the usefulness of Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management (ACRM) key points are little known.\n\nObjectives: We investigated the link between demographic factors and the effect of an ACRM simulation training on anaesthesiologists’ perceived value of ACRM key points.\n\nDesign: A prospective pre- and post-test survey from December 2017 to December 2019 of 111 anaesthesiologists involved into a combined ACRM-ACLS course in a simulation centre.\n\nMethods: Before and after the course participants were asked to indicate which were, in their opinion, the 5 ACRM key points most relevant for managing an anaesthetic emergency. No taxonomy tool of the 15 ACRM key points was used for teaching purposes.\n\nMain outcome measures: Pre-/post-course differences in participants’ subjective choices were connected by logistic regression analysis with demographic factors which included age, gender, years of work as anaesthesiologist, the amount of updating exposure, and familiarity with ACRM.\n\nResults: In median participants (47 M/64 F) had an age of 42 years (IQR 34-55 years), and 10 years working experience as anaesthesiologists (IQR 4-20 years). Around 20% of them had never heard of ACRM prior to this course. Communication was selected by up to 75% of participants without pre-/post-course differences. Although the other 4 ACRM points remained heterogeneously selected even after the course, we observed post-course vs pre-course increase in the selection rate of the ACRM points that address leadership, correct distribution of workload and utilization of all available resources. Among participants’ characteristics, the lack of familiarity with ACRM was the only significant predictor of the number of pre- to post-course changes in ACRM key points selection (OR=3.03, CI 95% 1.04 -9.09; p=0.0418).\n\nConclusions: The familiarity with ACRM should be considered when planning ACRM training, especially in cases where the ACRM training is not yet part of a formal education in anaesthesia.","PeriodicalId":7024,"journal":{"name":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta anaesthesiologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56126/73.2.09","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The factors that may contribute to learners’ perception about the usefulness of Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management (ACRM) key points are little known. Objectives: We investigated the link between demographic factors and the effect of an ACRM simulation training on anaesthesiologists’ perceived value of ACRM key points. Design: A prospective pre- and post-test survey from December 2017 to December 2019 of 111 anaesthesiologists involved into a combined ACRM-ACLS course in a simulation centre. Methods: Before and after the course participants were asked to indicate which were, in their opinion, the 5 ACRM key points most relevant for managing an anaesthetic emergency. No taxonomy tool of the 15 ACRM key points was used for teaching purposes. Main outcome measures: Pre-/post-course differences in participants’ subjective choices were connected by logistic regression analysis with demographic factors which included age, gender, years of work as anaesthesiologist, the amount of updating exposure, and familiarity with ACRM. Results: In median participants (47 M/64 F) had an age of 42 years (IQR 34-55 years), and 10 years working experience as anaesthesiologists (IQR 4-20 years). Around 20% of them had never heard of ACRM prior to this course. Communication was selected by up to 75% of participants without pre-/post-course differences. Although the other 4 ACRM points remained heterogeneously selected even after the course, we observed post-course vs pre-course increase in the selection rate of the ACRM points that address leadership, correct distribution of workload and utilization of all available resources. Among participants’ characteristics, the lack of familiarity with ACRM was the only significant predictor of the number of pre- to post-course changes in ACRM key points selection (OR=3.03, CI 95% 1.04 -9.09; p=0.0418). Conclusions: The familiarity with ACRM should be considered when planning ACRM training, especially in cases where the ACRM training is not yet part of a formal education in anaesthesia.
影响麻醉师在ACLS(AHA)-ACRM联合模拟训练后接受ACRM(麻醉危机资源管理)要点有用性的因素
背景:影响学习者对麻醉危机资源管理(ACRM)要点有用性的因素尚不清楚。目的:我们调查了人口统计学因素与ACRM模拟培训对麻醉师感知ACRM关键点价值的影响之间的联系。设计:2017年12月至2019年12月,对111名参与模拟中心ACRM-ACLS联合课程的麻醉师进行了一项前瞻性测试前和测试后调查。方法:在课程前后,参与者被要求指出他们认为与麻醉紧急情况管理最相关的5个ACRM要点。并没有将15个ACRM关键点的分类工具用于教学目的。主要结果指标:通过logistic回归分析,将参与者主观选择的课前/课后差异与人口统计学因素联系起来,这些因素包括年龄、性别、麻醉师的工作年限、更新暴露量和对ACRM的熟悉程度。结果:中位参与者(47M/64F)的年龄为42岁(IQR 34-55岁),以及10年麻醉师工作经验(IQR 4-20年)。在这门课程之前,大约20%的学生从未听说过ACRM。高达75%的参与者在没有课前/课后差异的情况下选择了交流。尽管即使在课程结束后,其他4个ACRM点的选择仍然是不均匀的,但我们观察到,与课程前相比,课程后的ACRM点选择率有所提高,这些点涉及领导力、工作量的正确分配和所有可用资源的利用。在参与者的特征中,对ACRM缺乏熟悉是ACRM关键点选择中课程前后变化数量的唯一显著预测因素(OR=3.03,CI 95%1.04-9.09;p=0.0418)。结论:在计划ACRM培训时应考虑对ACRM的熟悉程度,尤其是在ACRM培训还不是麻醉正规教育的一部分的情况下。
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
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
期刊介绍: L’Acta Anaesthesiologica Belgica est le journal de la SBAR, publié 4 fois par an. L’Acta a été publié pour la première fois en 1950. Depuis 1973 l’Acta est publié dans la langue Anglaise, ce qui a été résulté à un rayonnement plus internationaux. Depuis lors l’Acta est devenu un journal à ne pas manquer dans le domaine d’Anesthésie Belge, offrant e.a. les textes du congrès annuel, les Research Meetings, … Vous en trouvez aussi les dates des Research Meetings, du congrès annuel et des autres réunions.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
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