The ABCDE approach in critically ill patients: A scoping review of assessment tools, adherence and reported outcomes.

Autor:	Bruinink LJ; Radboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Linders M; Radboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., de Boode WP; Radboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Fluit CRMG; Radboud University Medical Center, Radboudumc Health Academy, Nijmegen, The Netherlands., Hogeveen M; Radboud University Medical Center, Amalia Children's Hospital, Department of Paediatrics, Division of Neonatology, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	Resuscitation plus [Resusc Plus] 2024 Sep 19; Vol. 20, pp. 100763. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Sep 19 (Print Publication: 2024).
DOI:	10.1016/j.resplu.2024.100763
Abstrakt:	Aim: The systematic Airway, Breathing, Circulation, Disability, and Exposure (ABCDE) approach is a priority-based consensus approach for the primary assessment of all categories of critically ill or injured patients. The aims of this review are to provide a wide overview of all relevant literature about existing ABCDE assessment tools, adherence to the ABCDE approach and related outcomes of teaching or application of the ABCDE approach by healthcare professionals. Methods: A comprehensive scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR Checklist. An a priori protocol was developed. In March 2024, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane library were searched to identify studies describing healthcare professionals applying the ABCDE approach in either simulation settings or clinical practice. Two reviewers independently screened records for inclusion and performed data extraction. Results: From n = 8165 results, fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria and reported data from clinical care (n = 27) or simulation settings (n = 30). Forty-two studies reported 39 different assessment tools, containing 5 to 36 items. Adherence to the approach was reported in 43 studies and varied from 18-84% in clinical practice and from 29-35% pre-intervention to 65-97% post-intervention in simulation settings. Team leader presence and attending simulation training improved adherence. Data on patient outcomes were remarkably scarce. Conclusion: Many different tools with variable content were identified to assess the ABCDE approach. Adherence was the most frequently reported outcome and varied widely among included studies. However, association between the ABCDE approach and patient outcomes is yet to be investigated. Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper. (© 2024 The Author(s).)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu