Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Two Different Cognitive Aid Bundle Designs on Adherence to Best Clinical Practice in Simulated Perioperative Emergencies

  • Amsterdam UMC - University of Amsterdam
  • Leiden University

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

25 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Stress and human error during perioperative emergency situations can significantly impact patient morbidity and mortality. Previous research has shown that cognitive aid bundles (CABs) minimize critical misses by 75%. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different CAB designs with the same content in reducing missed critical management steps for simulated perioperative emergencies. Methods: A multicenter randomized controlled simulation-based study was conducted including 27 teams, each consisting of three participants; each team performed four simulation scenarios. In the first scenario for each team (Scenario 1), no CAB was used. Scenarios 2 and 3 were randomly allocated to the groups, with either a branched, clustered design (CAB-1) or a linear, step-by-step design (CAB-2) of the cognitive aid. In Scenario 4, the groups used one of the previously mentioned CABs according to their own preference. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of missed critical management steps between the two different CABs. Secondary outcomes included user preference for one CAB design and the reduction in percentage of missed critical management steps using any CAB versus no CAB. Results: Twenty-seven teams simulated 108 perioperative emergency situations. The percentage of missed critical management steps was similar between CAB-1 and CAB-2 (27% [interquartile range (IQR) 20–29] versus 29% [IQR 20–35], p = 0.23). However, most participants favored the branched, clustered design CAB-1 (77.8%). Additionally, employing any CAB reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps by 36% (33% missed steps vs. 21% missed steps, p = 0.003). Conclusions: While the two CAB designs did not differ significantly in reducing missed critical management steps, the branched, clustered design was perceived as more user-friendly. Importantly, using any CAB significantly reduced the percentage of missed critical management steps compared to not using a cognitive aid, emphasizing the need for CAB use in the operating room.
Original languageEnglish
Article number5253
JournalClinical Chemistry
Volume13
Issue number17
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Sept 2024

Keywords

  • cognitive aid bundle
  • cognitive aid design
  • emergency manual
  • simulated perioperative emergency

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'A Comparative Analysis of the Impact of Two Different Cognitive Aid Bundle Designs on Adherence to Best Clinical Practice in Simulated Perioperative Emergencies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this