Introduction: A trauma resuscitation is dynamic and complex process in which failures could lead to serious adverse events. In several trauma centers, evaluation of trauma resuscitation is part of a hospital's quality assessment program. While video analysis is commonly used, some hospitals use live observations, mainly due to ethical and medicolegal concerns. The aim of this study was to compare the validity and reliability of video analysis and live observations to evaluate trauma resuscitations. Methods: In this prospective observational study, validity was assessed by comparing the observed adherence to 28 advanced trauma life support (ATLS) guideline related tasks by video analysis to life observations. Interobserver reliability was assessed by calculating the intra class coefficient of observed ATLS related tasks by live observations and video analysis. Results: Eleven simulated and thirteen real-life resuscitations were assessed. Overall, the percentage of observed ATLS related tasks performed during simulated resuscitations was 10.4% (P < 0.001) higher when the same resuscitations were analysed using video compared to live observations. During real-life resuscitations, 8.7% (p < 0.001) more ATLS related tasks were observed using video review compared to live observations. In absolute terms, a mean of 2.9 (during simulated resuscitations) respectively 2.5 (during actual resuscitations) ATLS-related tasks per resuscitation were not identified using live observers, that were observed through video analysis. The interobserver variability for observed ATLS related tasks was significantly higher using video analysis compared to live observations for both simulated (video analysis: ICC 0.97; 95% CI 0.97-0.98 vs. live observation: ICC 0.69; 95% CI 0.57-0.78) and real-life witnessed resuscitations (video analyse 0.99; 95% CI 0.99-1.00 vs live observers 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.89). Conclusion: Video analysis of trauma resuscitations may be more valid and reliable compared to evaluation by live observers. These outcomes may guide the debate to justify video review instead of live observations.
This paper is a report of a review conducted to provide an overview of the evidence in the literature on task-oriented training of stroke survivors and its relevance in daily nursing practice. Background: Stroke is the second leading cause of death and one of the leading causes of adult disability in the Western world. The use of neurodevelopmental treatment in the daily nursing care of stroke survivors does not improve clinical outcomes. Nurses are therefore exploring other forms of rehabilitation intervention, including task-oriented rehabilitation. Despite the growing number of studies showing evidence on task-oriented interventions, recommendations for daily nursing practice are lacking. A range of databases was searched to identify papers addressing taskoriented training in stroke rehabilitation, including Medline, CINAHL, Embase and the Cochrane Library of systematic reviews. Papers published in English between January 1996 and September 2007 were included. There were 42 papers in the final dataset, including nine systematic reviews. Review methods: The selected randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews were assessed for quality. Important characteristics and outcomes were extracted and summarized. Results: Studies of task-related training showed benefits for functional outcome compared with traditional therapies. Active use of task-oriented training with stroke survivors will lead to improvements in functional outcomes and overall healthrelated quality of life. Conclusion. Generally, task-oriented rehabilitation proved to be more effective. Many interventions are feasible for nurses and can be performed in a ward or at home. Nurses can and should play an important role in creating opportunities to practise meaningful functional tasks outside of regular therapy sessions.
Background: Non-technical errors, such as insufficient communication or leadership, are a major cause of medical failures during trauma resuscitation. Research on staffing variation among trauma teams on teamwork is still in their infancy. In this study, the extent of variation in trauma team staffing was assessed. Our hypothesis was that there would be a high variation in trauma team staffing. Methods: Trauma team composition of consecutive resuscitations of injured patients were evaluated using videos. All trauma team members that where part of a trauma team during a trauma resuscitation were identified and classified during a one-week period. Other outcomes were number of unique team members, number of new team members following the previous resuscitation and new team members following the previous resuscitation in the same shift (Day, Evening, Night). Results: All thirty-two analyzed resuscitations had a unique trauma team composition and 101 unique members were involved. A mean of 5.71 (SD 2.57) new members in teams of consecutive trauma resuscitations was found, which was two-third of the trauma team. Mean team members present during trauma resuscitation was 8.38 (SD 1.43). Most variation in staffing was among nurses (32 unique members), radiology technicians (22 unique members) and anesthetists (19 unique members). The least variation was among trauma surgeons (3 unique members) and ER physicians (3 unique members). Conclusion: We found an extremely high variation in trauma team staffing during thirty-two consecutive resuscitations at our level one trauma center which is incorporated in an academic teaching hospital. Further research is required to explore and prevent potential negative effects of staffing variation in trauma teams on teamwork, processes and patient related outcomes.
