Personal Protective Equipment Affect Team Performance During Medical Emergencies

NCT ID: NCT04742426

Last Updated: 2021-02-09

Study Results

Results pending

The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.

Basic Information

Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.

Recruitment Status

UNKNOWN

Clinical Phase

NA

Total Enrollment

22 participants

Study Classification

INTERVENTIONAL

Study Start Date

2021-05-01

Study Completion Date

2021-09-30

Brief Summary

Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.

Safety of healthcare professionals working in high-risk environments is of upmost importance. Personal protective equipment (PPE) may affect the performance of individuals and teams by altering their senses, manual skills and ability to communicate. Current guidelines offer flexibility in terms of which specific PPE components can safely be used. Yet, in some organisations, healthcare workers become used to using PPE well above the recommended standards (termed further in text as super-safe setup, SSS). Impact of this PPE policy on team performance and in turn to patient safety is unknown. The investigators hypothesise that SSS, as compared to WHO PPE standard, would negatively impact team performance and patient outcomes in a simulated crisis scenario.

Detailed Description

Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.

Safety of healthcare professionals working in high-risk environments is of upmost importance. Personal protective equipment (PPE) may affect the performance of individuals and teams by altering their senses, manual skills and ability to communicate. Current guidelines (WHO, UK, ECDC) offer flexibility in terms of which specific PPE components can safely be used. Yet, in some organisations, healthcare workers become used to using PPE well above the recommended standards (termed further in text as super-safe setup, SSS). Impact of this PPE policy on team performance and in turn to patient safety is unknown. The investigators hypothesise that SSS, as compared to WHO PPE standard, would negatively impact team performance and patient outcomes in a simulated crisis scenario.

Methods Design: prospective, open, randomised, controlled, parallel group trial, fully compliant with CONSORT guidelines with extension for simulation studies.

Study subjects: doctors and nurses routinely working in intensive care, written prospective informed consent Setting: High-fidelity simulation centre, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University in Prague

PPE tested

* WHO group (CONTROL): uses polycarbonate safety spectacles, fluid-resistant (Type IIR) surgical mask and disposable surgical gown. One pair of gloves. No head or foot cover.
* SSS group: Uses surgical cap, FFP3 respirator covered by surgical mask, face shield, whole-body suit (Tyvec), 3 pairs of gloves typed to suit sleeves and disposable foot cover

Study procedures: Teams consisting of one doctor and two nurses will be recruited. The purpose of the study will be explained to them as a part of consent procedure, but details of evaluation and scenarios will remain undisclosed. All team members will obtain standardized educational materials focused on the solution of airway management and non-shockable rhythm of sudden circulatory arrest in a critically ill patient.

* Introduction to simulation centre and baseline team performance measurement: On the study day the teams will undergo a standardised introduction to simulation centre and perform a mock scenario without PPE apart from gloves and simple surgical masks. The same parameters will be measured for mock scenario as for the test scenario.
* Test scenario: This will be a COVID-19 patient on mechanical ventilator who suddenly loses airways and develops profound hypoxia progressing to cardiac arrest. Team will be wearing PPE according to their study group allocation at the beginning of the scenario.

Outcomes:

• Primary outcome: Non-technical team performance measured as TEAM score and adjusted to baseline team performance

• Secondary outcomes: Quality of CPR and work according to guidelines

• Exploratory qualitative objective: physiological functions of team members and self-reported confidence defined on visual analogue scale

Outcome assessment methods: Performance indices will be observed by two independent, trained assessors. Both assessors will have access to video recordings of scenarios and software recordings. The final score will be an arithmetic mean of the scores of two observers. Inter-rater variability will be calculated and reported.

Sample size calculation and statistics: According to \[ref\] the TEAM performance score was 3.3±0.7 (mean±standard deviation). Therefore, n=22 (i.e. 11 teams per group) gives 80% probability of detecting at p\<0.05 (two sided) 25% difference of TEAM scores between groups. Primary outcome will be calculated by two sided Student t-test. Time-to-event outcomes will be compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and Wilcoxon test.

Dissemination plan and implementation: Data will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results have the potential to influence hospital hygiene policies as well as choices made by individual healthcare professionals.

Conditions

See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.

Safety Issues Communication Cardiopulmonary Arrest

Study Design

Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.

Allocation Method

RANDOMIZED

Intervention Model

PARALLEL

single-center, randomized (1:1), parallel-group, simulation study
Primary Study Purpose

OTHER

Blinding Strategy

SINGLE

Outcome Assessors
Blinding of participants and researchers involved in the experiment is not possible. Only the outcome assessor and data analyst is kept blinded to the allocation of subjects.

Study Groups

Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.

WHO group

minimal setting of personal protective equipment (COVID 19) recommended by WHO

Group Type ACTIVE_COMPARATOR

WHO recommended PPE

Intervention Type OTHER

Uses polycarbonate safety spectacles, fluid-resistant (Type IIR) surgical mask and disposable surgical gown. No head or foot cover.

Super-safe setup

maximal super-safe setup of personal protective equipment

Group Type EXPERIMENTAL

Super-safe setup

Intervention Type OTHER

Uses surgical cap, FFP3 respirator covered by surgical mask, face shield, whole-body suit (Tyvec), 3 pairs of gloves typed to suit sleeves and disposable foot cover.

Interventions

Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.

WHO recommended PPE

Uses polycarbonate safety spectacles, fluid-resistant (Type IIR) surgical mask and disposable surgical gown. No head or foot cover.

Intervention Type OTHER

Super-safe setup

Uses surgical cap, FFP3 respirator covered by surgical mask, face shield, whole-body suit (Tyvec), 3 pairs of gloves typed to suit sleeves and disposable foot cover.

Intervention Type OTHER

Eligibility Criteria

Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.

Inclusion Criteria

* Emergency Medicine (EM) and Anesthesiology and Critical Care (ACC) physicians
* Emergency Medicine (EM) and Anesthesiology and Critical Care (ACC) nurses
* Preparation and study of sent educational materials
* Fulfillment of the whole complete simulation

Exclusion Criteria

* Not giving or withdrawal of the informed consent
* Not willing to participate
* Incomplete data acqusition
Minimum Eligible Age

20 Years

Maximum Eligible Age

65 Years

Eligible Sex

ALL

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Sponsors

Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.

Roman Sýkora

OTHER

Sponsor Role lead

Responsible Party

Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.

Roman Sýkora

assistant professor

Responsibility Role SPONSOR_INVESTIGATOR

Principal Investigators

Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.

Frantisek Duska, PhD

Role: STUDY_DIRECTOR

Third Medical Faculty and FNKV University Hospital, Charles University in Prague, Czech Republic

Central Contacts

Reach out to these primary contacts for questions about participation or study logistics.

Roman Sykora, PhD

Role: CONTACT

+420602524203

Metodej Renza, MD

Role: CONTACT

+420607554375

References

Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.

Mormando G, Paganini M, Alexopoulos C, Savino S, Bortoli N, Pomiato D, Graziano A, Navalesi P, Fabris F. Life-Saving Procedures Performed While Wearing CBRNe Personal Protective Equipment: A Mannequin Randomized Trial. Simul Healthc. 2021 Dec 1;16(6):e200-e205. doi: 10.1097/SIH.0000000000000540.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 33428358 (View on PubMed)

Cooper S, Cant R, Porter J, Sellick K, Somers G, Kinsman L, Nestel D. Rating medical emergency teamwork performance: development of the Team Emergency Assessment Measure (TEAM). Resuscitation. 2010 Apr;81(4):446-52. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.11.027. Epub 2010 Feb 1.

Reference Type RESULT
PMID: 20117874 (View on PubMed)

Other Identifiers

Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.

PPE-TEAM

Identifier Type: -

Identifier Source: org_study_id

More Related Trials

Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.