Background Leadership skills directly correlate with the quality of technical performance of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and clinical outcomes. Despite an improved focus on non-technical skills in CPR training, the leadership of cardiac arrests is often variable.
Aims To assess the perceptions of leadership and team working among members of a cardiac arrest team and to evaluate future training needs.
Methods Cross-sectional survey of 102 members of a cardiac arrest team at an Acute Hospital Trust in the UK with 892 inpatient beds. Responses sought from doctors, nurses and healthcare assistants to 12 rated statements and 4 dichotomous questions.
Results Of 102 responses, 81 (79%) were from doctors and 21 (21%) from nurses. Among specialist registrars 90% agreed or strongly agreed that there was clear leadership at all arrests compared with between 28% and 49% of nurses and junior doctors respectively. Routine omission of key leadership tasks was reported by as many as 80% of junior doctors and 50% of nurses. Almost half of respondents reported non-adherence with Advanced Life Support (ALS) guidelines. Among junior members of the team, 36% felt confident to lead an arrest and 75% would welcome further dedicated cardiac arrest leadership training.
Conclusions Leadership training is integrated into the ALS (Resus Council, UK) qualification. However, this paper found that in spite of this training; standards of leadership are variable. The findings suggest a pressing need for further dedicated cardiac arrest leadership training with a focus on improving key leadership tasks such as role assignment, team briefing and debriefing.
- ACCIDENT & EMERGENCY MEDICINE
- MEDICAL EDUCATION & TRAINING
- INTENSIVE & CRITICAL CARE
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Contributors All authors have made substantial contributions to the submitted material in accordance with the conditions set out in the guide for authors.
Competing interests None declared.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.