2 research outputs found

    Crew resource management training in the intensive care unit. A multisite controlled before-after study

    No full text
    Introduction There is a growing awareness today that adverse events in the intensive care unit (ICU) are more often caused by problems related to non-technical skills than by a lack of technical, or clinical, expertise. Aim Team training, such as crew resource management (CRM), aims to improve these non-technical skills. The present study evaluated the effectiveness of CRM in the ICU. Methods Six ICUs participated in a paired controlled trial, with one pretest and two post-test measurements (after 3 and 12 months). Three ICUs received CRM training and were compared with a matched control unit. The 2-day classroom-based training was delivered to multidisciplinary groups (ie, ICU physicians, nurses, managers). All levels of Kirkpatrick's evaluation framework were assessed using a mixed method design, including questionnaires, observations and routinely administered patient outcome data. Results Level I-reaction: participants were very positive directly after the training. Level II—learning: attitudes towards behaviour aimed at optimising situational awareness were relatively high at baseline and remained stable. Level III—behaviour: self-reported behaviour aimed at optimising situational awareness improved in the intervention group. No changes were found in observed explicit professional oral communication. Level IV—organisation: patient outcomes were unaffected. Error management culture and job satisfaction improved in the intervention group. Patient safety culture improved in both control and intervention units. Conclusions We can conclude that CRM, as delivered in the present study, does not change behaviour or patient outcomes by itself, yet changes how participants think about errors and risks. This indicates that CRM requires a combination with other initiatives in order to improve clinical outcomes. (aut. ref.

    Comparison of Mechanical Power During Adaptive Support Ventilation Versus Nonautomated Pressure-Controlled Ventilation-A Pilot Study

    No full text
    Objectives: The aim of this pilot study was to compare the amount of "mechanical power of ventilation" under adaptive support ventilation with nonautomated pressure-controlled ventilation. Design: Single-center, observational prospective pilot study adjoining unitwide implementation of adaptive support ventilation in our department. Setting: The ICU of a nonacademic teaching hospital in the Netherlands. Patients: Twenty-four passive invasively ventilated critically ill patients expected to need of invasive ventilation beyond the following calendar day. Measurements and Main Results: In patients under adaptive support ventilation, only positive end-expiratory pressure and Fio2 were set by the caregivers-all other ventilator settings were under control of the ventilator; in patients under pressure-controlled ventilation, maximum airway pressure (Pmax), positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, and respiratory rate were set by the caregivers. Mechanical power of ventilation was calculated three times per day. Compared with pressure-controlled ventilation, mechanical power of ventilation with adaptive support ventilation was lower (15.1 [10.5-25.7] vs 22.9 [18.7-28.8] J/min; p = 0.04). Tidal volume was not different, but Pmax (p = 0.012) and respiratory rate (p = 0.012) were lower with adaptive support ventilation. Conclusions: This study suggests adaptive support ventilation may have benefits compared with pressure-controlled ventilation with respect to the mechanical power of ventilation transferred from the ventilator to the respiratory system in passive invasively ventilated critically ill patients. The difference in mechanical power of ventilation is not a result of a difference in tidal volume, but the reduction in applied pressures and respiratory rate. The findings of this observational pilot study need to be confirmed in a larger, preferably randomized clinical trial
    corecore