Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
Background: Teamwork is essential in healthcare, but team performance tends to deteriorate in stressful situations. Further development of training and education for healthcare teams requires a more complete understanding of team performance in stressful situations. We wanted to learn from others, by looking beyond the field of medicine, aiming to learn about a) sources of stress, b) effects of stress on team performance and c) concepts on dealing with stress. Methods: A scoping literature review was undertaken. The three largest interdisciplinary databases outside of healthcare, Scopus, Web of Science and PsycINFO, were searched for articles published in English between 2008 and 2020. Eligible articles focused on team performance in stressful situations with outcome measures at a team level. Studies were selected, and data were extracted and analysed by at least two researchers. Results: In total, 15 articles were included in the review (4 non-comparative, 6 multi- or mixed methods, 5 experimental studies). Three sources of stress were identified: performance pressure, role pressure and time pressure. Potential effects of stress on the team were: a narrow focus on task execution, unclear responsibilities within the team and diminished understanding of the situation. Communication, shared knowledge and situational awareness were identified as potentially helpful team processes. Cross training was suggested as a promising intervention to develop a shared mental model within a team. Conclusion: Stress can have a significant impact on team performance. Developing strategies to prevent and manage stress and its impact has the potential to significantly increase performance of teams in stressful situations. Further research into the development and use of team cognition in stress in healthcare teams is needed, in order to be able to integrate this ‘team brain’ in training and education with the specific goal of preparing professionals for team performance in stressful situations.
MULTIFILE
BACKGROUND: Total body surface area (TBSA) burned, expressed as percentage is one of the most important aspects of the initial care of a burn victim. It determines whether transfer to a burn centre is necessary as well as the need for, and amount of, intravenous fluid resuscitation. Numerous studies, however, have highlighted inaccuracies in TBSA assessment. Therefore, the differences in burn size estimates between referrers and burn centre's in children and its consequences in terms of transfer and intravenous fluid resuscitation were investigated.METHODS: This study involved two time periods from January 2002 until March 2004 and January 2007 until August 2008. All referred children admitted to a Dutch Burn centre within 24h post burn were eligible. Data were obtained from patient records retrospectively and in part prospectively.RESULTS: A total of 323 and 299 children were included in periods 1 and 2, respectively. Referring physicians overestimated burn size with a factor two (mean difference: 6% TBSA ± 5.5). About one in five children was referred to a burn centre without fulfilling the criteria for referral with regard to burn size (assessed by burn specialists) special localisation or inhalation trauma. Proportions of children receiving intravenous fluid resuscitation regardless of indication increased from 33% to 49% (p<0.01). The received volumes tended to be higher than necessary.CONCLUSIONS: Referring physicians overestimate burn size in children admitted to Dutch burn centres. This has little negative consequences, however, in terms of unindicated transfers to a burn centre or unnecessary fluid resuscitation.
