The effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital.
Journal
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
ISSN: 1469-493X
Titre abrégé: Cochrane Database Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100909747
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Sep 2019
24 Sep 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
25
9
2019
medline:
18
10
2019
entrez:
25
9
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life-threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes. To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors. We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta-analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation-of-care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome. We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high-, middle- and low-income settings.Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low-certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation-of-care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population).We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow-up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors. We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses.We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta-analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life-threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high-quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Preparing healthcare providers to manage relatively rare life-threatening emergency situations effectively is a challenge. Training sessions enable staff to rehearse for these events and are recommended by several reports and guidelines. In this review we have focused on interactive training, this includes any element where the training is not solely didactic but provides opportunity for discussions, rehearsals, or interaction with faculty or technology. It is important to understand the effective methods and essential elements for successful emergency training so that resources can be appropriately targeted to improve outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To assess the effects of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital on patient outcomes, clinical care practices, or organisational practices, and to identify essential components of effective interactive emergency training programmes.
SEARCH METHODS
METHODS
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ERIC and two trials registers up to 11 March 2019. We searched references of included studies, conference proceedings, and contacted study authors.
SELECTION CRITERIA
METHODS
We included randomised trials and cluster-randomised trials comparing interactive training for emergency situations with standard/no training. We defined emergency situations as those in which immediate lifesaving action is required, for example cardiac arrests and major haemorrhage. We included all studies where healthcare workers involved in providing direct clinical care were participants. We excluded studies outside of a hospital setting or where the intervention was not targeted at practicing healthcare workers. We included trials irrespective of publication status, date, and language.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
METHODS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of each included trial. Due to the small number of studies and the heterogeneity in outcome measures, we were unable to perform the planned meta-analysis. We provide a structured synthesis for the following outcomes: survival to hospital discharge, morbidity rate, protocol or guideline adherence, patient outcomes, clinical practice outcomes, and organisation-of-care outcomes. We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence and the strength of recommendations for each outcome.
MAIN RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 11 studies that reported on 2000 healthcare providers and over 300,000 patients; one study did not report the number of participants. Seven were cluster randomised trials and four were single centre studies. Four studies focused on obstetric training, three on obstetric and neonatal care, two on neonatal training, one on trauma and one on general resuscitations. The studies were spread across high-, middle- and low-income settings.Interactive training may make little or no difference in survival to hospital discharge for patients requiring resuscitation (1 study; 30 participants; 98 events; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if emergency training changes morbidity rate, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 1778 participants; 57,193 patients, when reported). We are uncertain if training alters healthcare providers' adherence to clinical protocols or guidelines, as the certainty of the evidence is very low (3 studies; 156 participants; 558 patients). We are uncertain if there were improvements in patient outcomes following interactive training for emergency situations, as we assessed the evidence as very low-certainty (5 studies, 951 participants; 314,055 patients). We are uncertain if training for emergency situations improves clinical practice outcomes as the certainty of the evidence is very low (4 studies; 1417 participants; 28,676 patients, when reported). Two studies reported organisation-of-care outcomes, we are uncertain if interactive emergency training has any effect on this outcome as the certainty of the evidence is very low (634 participants; 179,400 patient population).We examined prespecified subgroups and found no clear commonalities in effect of multidisciplinary training, location of training, duration of the course, or duration of follow-up. We also examined areas arising from the studies including focus of training, proportion of staff trained, leadership of intervention, and incentive/trigger to participate, and again identified no clear mediating factors. The sources of funding for the studies were governmental, local organisations, or philanthropic donors.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We are uncertain if there are any benefits of interactive training of healthcare providers on the management of life-threatening emergencies in hospital as the certainty of the evidence is very low. We were unable to identify any factors that may have allowed us to identify an essential element of these interactive training courses.We found a lack of consistent reporting, which contributed to the inability to meta-analyse across specialities. More trials are required to build the evidence base for the optimum way to prepare healthcare providers for rare life-threatening emergency events. These trials need to be conducted with attention to outcomes important to patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. It is vitally important to develop high-quality studies adequately powered and with attention to minimising the risk of bias.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31549741
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012177.pub2
pmc: PMC6757513
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
CD012177Références
BJOG. 2003 Sep;110(9):837-41
pubmed: 14511966
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Dec 16;12:CD011545
pubmed: 33325570
BJOG. 2005 Mar;112(3):372-5
pubmed: 15713158
BJOG. 2014 Dec;121(13):1710-8
pubmed: 24751206
Resuscitation. 2014 Feb;85(2):253-9
pubmed: 24176723
Resuscitation. 2012 Sep;83(9):1055-60
pubmed: 22391016
Resuscitation. 2010 Nov;81(11):1556-61
pubmed: 20724057
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2017 Sep 7;17(1):294
pubmed: 28882116
BMC Med. 2013 Oct 03;11:215
pubmed: 24090370
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Jan;109(1):48-55
pubmed: 17197587
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Aug 22;(8):CD004173
pubmed: 25146524
Neonatology. 2016;110(3):210-24
pubmed: 27222260
BMJ Open. 2015 Oct 06;5(10):e008344
pubmed: 26443654
Simul Healthc. 2016 Feb;11(1):1-9
pubmed: 26312613
Pediatrics. 2010 Nov;126(5):e1072-80
pubmed: 20937655
Med Teach. 2009 Jan;31(1):1-12
pubmed: 19253148
Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2016 Oct;95(10):1111-9
pubmed: 27496301
Trials. 2013 Jul 17;14:220
pubmed: 23870501
Qual Saf Health Care. 2004 Dec;13(6):417-21
pubmed: 15576702
JAMA. 2011 Sep 7;306(9):978-88
pubmed: 21900138
Semin Perinatol. 2013 Jun;37(3):151-6
pubmed: 23721770
BMC Med Educ. 2015 Jul 24;15:117
pubmed: 26206373
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Nov;110(5):1069-74
pubmed: 17978121
Resuscitation. 2011 Aug;82(8):1047-52
pubmed: 21481514
Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf. 2011 Aug;37(8):357-64
pubmed: 21874971
BJOG. 2017 Mar;124(4):641-650
pubmed: 27726304
Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2013 Dec;53(6):509-16
pubmed: 24033002
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014 Nov 20;14:367
pubmed: 25409895
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2017 Sep;216:79-84
pubmed: 28738295
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 May 13;(5):CD007071
pubmed: 25968066
Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 2015 Nov;29(8):1028-43
pubmed: 25937554
N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 18;362(7):614-23
pubmed: 20164485
Resuscitation. 2015 Oct;95:100-47
pubmed: 26477701
Resuscitation. 2018 Aug;129:48-54
pubmed: 29902494
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
BJOG. 2006 Feb;113(2):177-82
pubmed: 16411995
BJOG. 2009 Jul;116(8):1028-32
pubmed: 19438497
J Trauma. 2008 Feb;64(2):255-63; discussion 263-4
pubmed: 18301184
Lancet. 2013 Jul 13;382(9887):146-57
pubmed: 23721752
Hum Resour Health. 2013 Oct 01;11:51
pubmed: 24083659
Resuscitation. 2010 Oct;81(10):1305-52
pubmed: 20956049
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2010 Oct 08;10:59
pubmed: 20932293
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 17;13(12):e0207909
pubmed: 30557350
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012 Jun;25(6):568-74
pubmed: 21793707
Obstet Gynecol. 2007 Nov;110(5):1059-68
pubmed: 17978120
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94
pubmed: 21195583
Pediatr Emerg Care. 2009 Mar;25(3):139-44
pubmed: 19262421
BJOG. 2011 Mar;118 Suppl 1:1-203
pubmed: 21356004
PLoS One. 2008 Feb 13;3(2):e1599
pubmed: 18270586
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018 Mar 22;18(1):72
pubmed: 29566659
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 04;(9):CD009106
pubmed: 26337958