David Neilipovitz

A pilot study using high-fidelity simulation to formally evaluate performance in the resuscitation of critically ill patients: The University of Ottawa Critical Care Medicine, High-Fidelity Simulation, and Crisis Resource Management I Study.

Objective:Resuscitation of critically ill patients requires medical knowledge, clinical skills, and nonmedical skills, or crisis resource management (CRM) skills. There is currently no gold standard for evaluation of CRM performance. The primary objective was to examine the use of high-fidelity simulation as a medium to evaluate CRM performance. Since no gold standard for measuring performance exists, the secondary objective was the validation of a measuring instrument for CRM performance—the Ottawa Crisis Resource Management Global Rating Scale (or Ottawa GRS). Design:First- and third-year residents participated in two simulator scenarios, recreating emergencies seen in acute care settings. Three raters then evaluated resident performance using edited video recordings of simulator performance. Setting:A Canadian university tertiary hospital. Interventions:The Ottawa GRS was used, which provides a 7-point Likert scale for performance in five categories of CRM and an overall performance score. Measurements and Main Results:Construct validity was measured on the basis of content validity, response process, internal structure, and response to other variables. One variable measured in this study was the level of training. A t-test analysis of Ottawa GRS scores was conducted to examine response to the variable of level of training. Intraclass correlation coefficient scores were used to measure interrater reliability for both scenarios. Thirty-two first-year and 28 third-year residents participated in the study. Third-year residents produced higher mean scores for overall CRM performance than first-year residents (p < .0001) and in all individual categories within the Ottawa GRS (p = .0019 to p < .0001). This difference was noted for both scenarios and for each individual rater (p = .0061 to p < .0001). No statistically significant difference in resident scores was observed between scenarios. Intraclass correlation coefficient scores of .59 and .61 were obtained for scenarios 1 and 2, respectively. Conclusions:Data obtained using the Ottawa GRS in measuring CRM performance during high-fidelity simulation scenarios support evidence of construct validity. Data also indicate the presence of acceptable interrater reliability when using the Ottawa GRS.

A comparison of global rating scale and checklist scores in the validation of an evaluation tool to assess performance in the resuscitation of critically ill patients during simulated emergencies (abbreviated as "CRM simulator study IB").

Background: Crisis resource management (CRM) skills are a set of nonmedical skills required to manage medical emergencies. There is currently no gold standard for evaluation of CRM performance. A prior study examined the use of a global rating scale (GRS) to evaluate CRM performance. This current study compared the use of a GRS and a checklist as formal rating instruments to evaluate CRM performance during simulated emergencies. Methods: First-year and third-year residents participated in two simulator scenarios each. Three raters then evaluated resident performance in CRM using edited video recordings using both a GRS and a checklist. The Ottawa GRS provides a seven-point anchored ordinal scale for performance in five categories of CRM, and an overall performance score. The Ottawa CRM checklist provides 12 items in the five categories of CRM, with a maximum cumulative score of 30 points. Construct validity was measured on the basis of content validity, response process, internal structure, and response to other variables. T-test analysis of Ottawa GRS scores was conducted to examine response to the variable of level of training. Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) scores were used to measure inter-rater reliability for both scenarios. Results: Thirty-two first-year and 28 third-year residents participated in the study. Third-year residents produced higher mean scores for overall CRM performance than first-year residents (P < 0.05), and in all individual categories within the Ottawa GRS (P < 0.05) and the Ottawa CRM checklist (P < 0.05). This difference was noted for both scenarios and for each individual rater (P < 0.05). No statistically significant difference in resident scores was observed between scenarios for both instruments. ICC scores of 0.59 and 0.61 were obtained for Scenarios 1 and 2 with the Ottawa GRS, whereas ICC scores of 0.63 and 0.55 were obtained with the Ottawa CRM checklist. Users indicated a strong preference for the Ottawa GRS given ease of scoring, presence of an overall score, and the potential for formative evaluation. Conclusion: Construct validity seems to be present when using both the Ottawa GRS and CRM checklist to evaluate CRM performance during simulated emergencies. Data also indicate the presence of moderate inter-rater reliability when using both the Ottawa GRS and CRM checklist.

Tranexamic acid for major spinal surgery

Patients who undergo major spinal surgery often require multiple blood transfusions. The antifibrinolytics are medications that can reduce blood-transfusion requirements in cardiac surgery and total knee arthroplasty. The present role of synthetic antifibrinolytics, especially tranexamic acid, in reducing peri-operative blood-transfusion requirements in spine surgery is still unclear. The majority of studies exploring the role of these drugs in spine surgery have limited patient enrolment and report mixed results. The goal of the present review is to discuss the pharmacology of tranexamic acid briefly. A brief synopsis of the studies using the synthetic antifibrinolytics for spine surgery is presented. Finally, the potential risks and the benefits of antifibrinolytics are discussed.

Monitoring intensive care unit performance—impact of a novel individualised performance scorecard in critical care medicine: a mixed-methods study protocol

Introduction Patients admitted to a critical care medicine (CCM) environment, including an intensive care unit (ICU), are susceptible to harm and significant resource utilisation. Therefore, a strategy to optimise provider performance is required. Performance scorecards are used by institutions for the purposes of driving quality improvement. There is no widely accepted or standardised scorecard that has been used for overall CCM performance. We aim to improve quality of care, patient safety and patient/family experience in CCM practice through the utilisation of a standardised, repeatable and multidimensional performance scorecard, designed to provide a continuous review of ICU physician and nurse practice, as well as departmental metrics. Methods and analysis This will be a mixed-methods, controlled before and after study to assess the impact of a CCM-specific quality scorecard. Scorecard metrics were developed through expert consensus and existing literature. The study will include 19 attending CCM physicians and approximately 300 CCM nurses. Patient data for scorecard compilation are collected daily from bedside flow sheets. Preintervention baseline data will be collected for 6 months for each participant. After this, each participant will receive their scorecard measures. Following a 3-month washout period, postintervention data will be collected for 6 months. The primary outcome will be change in performance metrics following the provision of scorecard feedback to subjects. A cost analysis will also be performed, with the purpose of comparing total ICU costs prior to implementation of the scorecard with total ICU costs following implementation of the scorecard. The qualitative portion will include interviews with participants following the intervention phase. Interviews will be analysed in order to identify recurrent themes and subthemes, for the purposes of driving scorecard improvement. Ethics and dissemination This protocol has been approved by the local research ethics board. Publication of results is anticipated in 2019. If this intervention is found to improve patient- and unit-directed outcomes, with evidence of cost-effectiveness, it would support the utilisation of such a scorecard as a quality standard in CCM.