A counterbalanced cross-over study of the effects of visual, auditory and no feedback on performance measures in a simulated cardiopulmonary resuscitation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Previous research has demonstrated that trained rescuers have difficulties achieving and maintaining the correct depth and rate of chest compressions during both in and out of hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Feedback on rate and depth mitigate decline in performance quality but not completely with the residual performance decline attributed to rescuer fatigue. The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of feedback (none, auditory only and visual only) on the quality of CPR and rescuer fatigue.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Fifteen female volunteers performed 10 minutes of 30:2 CPR in each of three feedback conditions: none, auditory only, and visual only. Visual feedback was displayed continuously in graphic form. Auditory feedback was error correcting and provided by a voice assisted CPR manikin. CPR quality measures were collected using SkillReporter^®software. Blood lactate (mmol/dl) and perceived exertion served as indices of fatigue. One-way and two way repeated measures analyses of variance were used with alpha set <it>a priori </it>at 0.05.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Visual feedback yielded a greater percentage of correct compressions (78.1 ± 8.2%) than did auditory (65.4 ± 7.6%) or no feedback (44.5 ± 8.1%). Compression rate with auditory feedback (87.9 ± 0.5 compressions per minute) was less than it was with both visual and no feedback (p < 0.05). CPR performed with no feedback (39.2 ± 0.5 mm) yielded a shallower average depth of compression and a lower percentage (55 ± 8.9%) of compressions within the accepted 38-50 mm range than did auditory or visual feedback (p < 0.05). The duty cycle for auditory feedback (39.4 ± 1.6%) was less than it was with no feedback (p < 0.05). Auditory feedback produced lower lactate concentrations than did visual feedback (p < 0.05) but there were no differences in perceived exertion.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>In this study feedback mitigated the negative effects of fatigue on CPR performance and visual feedback yielded better CPR performance than did no feedback or auditory feedback. The perfect confounding of sensory modality and periodicity of feedback (visual feedback provided continuously and auditory feedback provided to correct error) leaves unanswered the question of optimal form and timing of feedback.</p

Rationale and design of the PRAETORIAN-COVID trial:A double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with valsartan for PRevention of Acute rEspiraTORy dIstress syndrome in hospitAlized patieNts with SARS-COV-2 Infection Disease

There is much debate on the use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) in severe acute respiratory syndrome–coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)–infected patients. Although it has been suggested that ARBs might lead to a higher susceptibility and severity of SARS-CoV-2 infection, experimental data suggest that ARBs may reduce acute lung injury via blocking angiotensin-II–mediated pulmonary permeability, inflammation, and fibrosis. However, despite these hypotheses, specific studies on ARBs in SARS-CoV-2 patients are lacking. Methods: The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized clinical trial in adult hospitalized SARS-CoV-2–infected patients (n = 651). The primary aim is to investigate the effect of the ARB valsartan compared to placebo on the composite end point of admission to an intensive care unit, mechanical ventilation, or death within 14 days of randomization. The active-treatment arm will receive valsartan in a dosage titrated to blood pressure up to a maximum of 160 mg bid, and the placebo arm will receive matching placebo. Treatment duration will be 14 days, or until the occurrence of the primary end point or until hospital discharge, if either of these occurs within 14 days. The trial is registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04335786, 2020). The PRAETORIAN-COVID trial is a double-blind, placebo-controlled 1:1 randomized trial to assess the effect of valsartan compared to placebo on the occurrence of ICU admission, mechanical ventilation, and death in hospitalized SARS-CoV-2–infected patients. The results of this study might impact the treatment of SARS-CoV-2 patients globally

Letterlijk: De kunst van gespreksvoering in het sociaal werk

De belangrijkste reden waarom er weinig Nederlandstalig onderzoek naar gespreksvoering in het sociaal werk is, is simpel: aan de Nederlandse universiteiten vind je (in tegenstelling tot bijvoorbeeld de Scandinavische landen) geen aparte opleiding of onderzoeksgroep sociaal werk. Omdat onderzoek tot voor kort voornamelijk werd uitgevoerd door universiteiten heeft het sociaal werk in Nederland maar mondjesmaat in de aandacht van de wetenschap gestaan. Uitzonderingen bestaan uit individuele onderzoekers die binnen de sociale wetenschappen aandacht hebben besteed aan het sociaal werk, maar van een lange en ingebedde onderzoekstraditie is nooit sprake geweest. Sinds de komst van lectoraten aan hogescholen is daar verandering in gekomen. In Nederland zijn er inmiddels X lectoraten op het gebied van zorg en welzijn. Het sociaal werk is daarmee een domein van onderzoek geworden. Gespreksvoering is echter een micro-onderdeel van het vak van de sociaal werker. Volgens ons een cruciaal micro-onderdeel, maar desalniettemin (nog) niet in het centrum van de onderzoeksaandacht