Using Emergency Manuals During Interprofessional Crisis Management: Are There Unintended Consequences?

Brief summary

Reproduced verbatim from the official ClinicalTrials.gov record. Not medical advice.

Despite increasing interest in emergency manuals (EMs), relatively little is known about their effectiveness and limitations in the perioperative setting. Prior studies have been limited in that they evaluated EMs using crises that were tailor-made to match one of their chapters, and there has been minimal participation by attending surgeons and other experienced personnel. The Investigators' preliminary experience suggests less-than-expected EM use and suboptimal usage, which may be due to the simulation scenario falling "halfway between" two different chapters of the EM, raising the question of whether limitations were due to the EM content, team dynamics, or inadequate training in the EM use. In this randomized, prospective, two-center simulation-based study, the investigators utilize clinical scenarios specifically designed to observe the patterns of use and to test the limitations of the EMs. The hypothesis is that EMs may not improve, and may even worsen, clinical performance in situations that do not exactly match a specific chapter of that EM, and that EM usage patterns will identify both strengths and limitations of the tools and its implementation. The participating healthcare providers consisting of experienced surgeons, anesthesiologists, and nurses will be randomized into four experimental groups, each exposed to either a "specific" or "non-specific" simulation scenario, along with or without the availability of the EM. The major experimental endpoint will be how many "critical actions" each team performs, scored as the percentage of actions taken from a pre-determined list. The goal of this study is to improve EM content and use by understanding its limitations during interprofessional team-training simulations and to study whether EMs enhance or detract from clinical performance. This is especially a concern in situations that do not exactly match a specific chapter of the EM, such as cases that are vague and represent multi-factorial diagnostic dilemmas such as hypotension and hypoxemia. The ultimate goal is to strengthen patient safety by providing guidance for improving EM content, use, and training protocols.

About this trial record page

What this page shows

Public field values for ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT03006549, including study identification, conditions, interventions, eligibility (age, sex, healthy volunteer), timeline, and U.S. site list.

What this page does not do

No medical advice, eligibility judgments, treatment recommendations, study quality scoring, or AI-generated medical summaries. No site contact phone numbers, emails, or investigator names.

Where the data comes from

Sourced from the official ClinicalTrials.gov public API. The official record is the source of truth.

Last refresh

Last update posted Aug 4, 2019 · Synced Sep 6, 2026

Related: full search, browse by condition, browse by drug or therapy, browse by sponsor, browse by U.S. city.