scholarly journals Trauma team leaders’ non-verbal communication: video registration during trauma team training

Author(s):  
Maria Härgestam ◽  
Magnus Hultin ◽  
Christine Brulin ◽  
Maritha Jacobsson
2014 ◽  
Vol 186 (2) ◽  
pp. 671-672
Author(s):  
A. Briggs ◽  
A.S. Raja ◽  
M.F. Joyce ◽  
S.J. Yule ◽  
W. Jiang ◽  
...  

CJEM ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma C. Burns ◽  
Natalie L. Yanchar

ABSTRACT Background: Unlike in adults, there are currently no standardized, validated guidelines to aid practitioners in clearing the pediatric cervical spine (C-spine). Many pediatric centres in Canada have locally produced, adult-modified guidelines, but the extent to which these or other guidelines are used is unknown. Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine if Canadian physicians are using either locally produced or adult C-spine guidelines to clear the C- spines of patients < 16 years of age. The study also characterized the common methods used by physicians to clear pediatric C-spine injuries in terms of clinical examination and radiologic imaging. Methods: A 20-question survey was distributed to 240 Canadian pediatric emergency physicians and trauma team leaders using the Dillman Total Design Method. Results: The response rate was 68%. The results showed that 61% of physicians currently use guidelines to assist in the clearance of pediatric C-spines. Of those physicians not using guidelines, 85% stated that they would use them if they were available. The clinical criteria most often used to clear pediatric C-spines were a normal neurologic examination (97%) and the absence of C-spine tenderness (95%), intoxication (94%), and distracting injuries (87%). Conclusions: Guidelines are commonly used by Canadian physicians when clearing the pediatric C-spine, yet few are validated in children. Those most commonly used are locally developed guidelines, the Canadian C-spine guidelines, or National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study (NEXUS) low-risk criteria.


Surgery Today ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 49 (3) ◽  
pp. 261-267
Author(s):  
Zhi-Jie Hong ◽  
Cheng-Jueng Chen ◽  
De-Chuan Chan ◽  
Teng-Wei Chen ◽  
Jyh-Cherng Yu ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence M. Gillman ◽  
Doug Martin ◽  
Paul T. Engels ◽  
Peter Brindley ◽  
Sandy Widder ◽  
...  

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S2) ◽  
pp. S21-S29
Author(s):  
Arshia P. Javidan ◽  
Avery B. Nathens ◽  
Homer Tien ◽  
Luis T. da Luz

ABSTRACTObjectivesThere has been limited evaluation of handover from emergency medical services (EMS) to the trauma team. We sought to characterize these handover practices to identify areas of improvement and determine if handover standardization might be beneficial for trauma team performance.MethodsData were prospectively collected over a nine-week period by a trained observer at a Canadian level one trauma centre. A randomized scheduled was used to capture a representative breadth of handovers. Data collected included outcome measures such as duration of handover, structure of the handover, and information shared, process measures such as questions and interruptions from the trauma team, and perceptions of the handover from nurses, trauma team leaders and EMS according to a bidirectional Likert scale.Results79 formal verbal handovers were observed. Information was often missing regarding airway (present 22%), breathing (54%), medications (59%), and allergies (54%). Handover structure lacked consistency beyond the order of identification and mechanism of injury. Of all questions asked, 35% were questioning previously given information. The majority of handovers (61%) involved parallel conversations between team members while EMS was speaking. There was a statistically significant disparity between the self-evaluation of EMS handovers and the perceived quality determined by nurses and trauma team leaders.ConclusionsWe have identified the need to standardize handover due to poor information content, a lack of structure and active listening, information repetition, and discordant expectations between team members. These data will guide the development of a co-constructed framework integrating the perspectives of all team members.


2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 520-526 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Rosenman ◽  
Marie Vrablik ◽  
Sarah Brolliar ◽  
Anne Chipman ◽  
Rosemarie Fernandez

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 80-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rune Bruhn Jakobsen ◽  
Sarah Frandsen Gran ◽  
Bergsvein Grimsmo ◽  
Kari Arntzen ◽  
Erik Fosse ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document