• 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, and Vinay M Nadkarni.
• Research Center for Emergency Medicine, Aarhus University Hospital, Denmark; Department of Internal Medicine, Randers Regional Hospital, Denmark; Center for Simulation, Advanced Education and Innovation, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA; Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, USA. Electronic address: lauridsekg@email.chop.edu.
• Resuscitation. 2020 Feb 1; 147: 73-80.

AimRecommendations 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.MethodsModified 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.ResultsConsensus 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.ConclusionThis 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.Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier B.V.

11 keywords...

hide…