↓ Skip to main content

Prompting with electronic checklist improves clinician performance in medical emergencies: a high-fidelity simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Emergency Medicine, April 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 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
Prompting with electronic checklist improves clinician performance in medical emergencies: a high-fidelity simulation study
Published in
International Journal of Emergency Medicine, April 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12245-018-0185-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ronaldo Sevilla-Berrios, John C. O’Horo, Christopher N. Schmickl, Aysen Erdogan, Xiaomei Chen, Lisbeth Y. Garcia Arguello, Yue Dong, Oguz Kilickaya, Brain Pickering, Rahul Kashyap, Ognjen Gajic

Abstract

Inefficient processes of care delivery during acute resuscitation can compromise the "Golden Hour," the time when quick interventions can rapidly determine the course of the patient's outcome. Checklists have been shown to be an effective tool for standardizing care models. We developed a novel electronic tool, the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness (CERTAIN) to facilitate standardized evaluation and treatment approach for acutely decompensating patients. The checklist was enforced by the use of a "prompter," a team member separate from the leader who records and reviews pertinent CERTAIN algorithms and verbalizes these to the team. Our hypothesis was that the CERTAIN model, with the use of the tool and a prompter, can improve clinician performance and satisfaction in the evaluation of acute decompensating patients in a simulated environment. Volunteer clinicians with valid adult cardiac life support (ACLS) certification were invited to test the CERTAIN model in a high-fidelity simulation center. The first session was used to establish a baseline evaluation in a standard clinical resuscitation scenario. Each subject then underwent online training before returning to a simulation center for a live didactic lecture, software knowledge assessment, and practice scenarios. Each subject was then evaluated on a scenario with a similar content to the baseline. All subjects took a post-experience satisfaction survey. Video recordings of the pre-and post-test sessions were evaluated using a validated method by two blinded reviewers. Eighteen clinicians completed baseline and post-education sessions. CERTAIN prompting was associated with reduced omissions of critical tasks (46 to 32%, p < 0.01) and 12 out of 14 general assessment tasks were completed in a more timely manner. The post-test survey indicated that 72% subjects felt better prepared during an emergency scenario using the CERTAIN model and 85% would want to be treated with the CERTAIN if they were critically ill. Prompting with electronic checklist improves clinicians' performance and satisfaction when dealing with medical emergencies in high-fidelity simulation environment.

Timeline

Login to access the full chart related to this output.

If you don’t have an account, click here to discover Explorer

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 85 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 11 13%
Student > Master 10 12%
Other 9 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 7%
Other 18 21%
Unknown 25 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 20 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 14 16%
Computer Science 4 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 2%
Other 14 16%
Unknown 28 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 28 November 2019.
All research outputs
#17,878,470
of 26,175,267 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#445
of 649 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#223,240
of 343,259 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Emergency Medicine
#12
of 16 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,175,267 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 649 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.1. This one is in the 20th percentile – i.e., 20% 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 343,259 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 16 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.