Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2020 Feb 1:147:73-80.
doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2019.12.013. Epub 2019 Dec 28.

Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Kasper Glerup Lauridsen  1 , Ichiro Watanabe  2 , Bo Løfgren  3 , Adam Cheng  4 , Jordan Duval-Arnould  5 , Elizabeth A Hunt  6 , Grace L Good  2 , Dana Niles  7 , Robert A Berg  7 , Akira Nishisaki  8 , Vinay M Nadkarni  8
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Standardising communication to improve in-hospital cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Kasper Glerup Lauridsen et al. Resuscitation. .

Abstract

Aim: Recommendations for standardised communication to reduce chest compression (CC) pauses are lacking. We aimed to achieve consensus and evaluate feasibility and efficacy using standardised communication during cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events.

Methods: Modified Delphi consensus process to design standardised communication elements. Feasibility was pilot tested in 16 simulated CPR scenarios (8 scenarios with physician team leaders and 8 with chest compressors) randomized (1:1) to standardised [INTERVENTION] vs. closed-loop communication [CONTROL]. Adherence and efficacy (duration of CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, rhythm check) was assessed by audiovisual recording. Mental demand and frustration were assessed by NASA task load index subscales.

Results: Consensus elements for standardised communication included: 1) team preparation 15-30 s before CC interruption, 2) pre-interruption countdown synchronized with last 5 CCs, 3) specific action words for defibrillation, intubation, and interrupting/resuming CCs. Median (Q1,Q3) adherence to standardised phrases was 98% (80%,100%). Efficacy analysis showed a median [Q1,Q3] peri-shock pause of 5.1 s. [4.4; 5.8] vs. 7.5 s. [6.3; 8.8] seconds, p < 0.001, intubation pause of 3.8 s. [3.6; 5.0] vs. 6.9 s. [4.8; 10.1] seconds, p = 0.03, rhythm check pause of 4.2 [3.2,5.7] vs. 8.6 [5.0,10.5] seconds, p < 0.001, median frustration index of 10/100 [5,20] vs. 35/100 [25,50], p < 0.001, and median mental demand load of 55/100 [30,70] vs. 65/100 [50,85], p = 0.41 for standardised vs. closed loop communication.

Conclusion: This pilot study demonstrated feasibility of using consensus-based standardised communication that was associated with shorter CC pauses for defibrillation, intubation, and rhythm checks without increasing frustration index or mental demand compared to current best practice, closed loop communication.

Keywords: Advanced life support; Communication; Delphi technique; In-hospital cardiac arrest; Nontechnical skills; Simulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types