↓ Skip to main content

Interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation-based training leads to safe sedation procedures in the emergency department

Overview of attention for article published in Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, August 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
28 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation-based training leads to safe sedation procedures in the emergency department
Published in
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine, August 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13049-016-0291-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Thomas C. Sauter, Wolf E. Hautz, Simone Hostettler, Monika Brodmann-Maeder, Luca Martinolli, Beat Lehmann, Aristomenis K. Exadaktylos, Dominik G. Haider

Abstract

Sedation is a procedure required for many interventions in the Emergency department (ED) such as reductions, surgical procedures or cardioversions. However, especially under emergency conditions with high risk patients and rapidly changing interdisciplinary and interprofessional teams, the procedure caries important risks. It is thus vital but difficult to implement a standard operating procedure for sedation procedures in any ED. Reports on both, implementation strategies as well as their success are currently lacking. This study describes the development, implementation and clinical evaluation of an interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation-based sedation training concept. All physicians and nurses with specialised training in emergency medicine at the Berne University Department of Emergency Medicine participated in a mandatory interdisciplinary and interprofessional simulation-based sedation training. The curriculum consisted of an individual self-learning module, an airway skill training course, three simulation-based team training cases, and a final practical learning course in the operating theatre. Before and after each training session, self-efficacy, awareness of emergency procedures, knowledge of sedation medication and crisis resource management were assessed with a questionnaire. Changes in these measures were compared via paired tests, separately for groups formed based on experience and profession. To assess the clinical effect of training, we collected patient and team satisfaction as well as duration and complications for all sedations in the ED within the year after implementation. We further compared time to beginning of procedure, time for duration of procedure and time until discharge after implementation with the one year period before the implementation. Cohen's d was calculated as effect size for all statistically significant tests. Fifty staff members (26 nurses and 24 physicians) participated in the training. In all subgroups, there is a significant increase in self-efficacy and knowledge with high effect size (d z  = 1.8). The learning is independent of profession and experience level. In the clinical evaluation after implementation, we found no major complications among the sedations performed. Time to procedure significantly improved after the introduction of the training (d = 0.88). Learning is independent of previous working experience and equally effective in raising the self-efficacy and knowledge in all professional groups. Clinical outcome evaluation confirms the concepts safety and feasibility. An interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation-based sedation training is an efficient way to implement a conscious sedation concept in an ED.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 19 15%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Bachelor 14 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 5%
Other 6 5%
Other 25 19%
Unknown 45 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 31 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 23 18%
Social Sciences 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 13 10%
Unknown 54 42%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 September 2018.
All research outputs
#13,476,177
of 22,881,964 outputs
Outputs from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#821
of 1,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,942
of 366,909 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
#19
of 26 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,881,964 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,259 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 366,909 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 26 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.