請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件:
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71048
完整後設資料紀錄
DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.advisor | 賴美淑 | |
dc.contributor.author | Chih-Wei Yang | en |
dc.contributor.author | 楊志偉 | zh_TW |
dc.date.accessioned | 2021-06-17T04:50:20Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2021-10-03 | |
dc.date.copyright | 2018-10-03 | |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | |
dc.date.submitted | 2018-07-31 | |
dc.identifier.citation | 參考文獻References
1.楊志偉。談基本救命術及心肺復甦術。健康世界2012.3:1-6。 2.Safar P, Escarraga LA, Elam JO: A comparison of the mouth-to-mouth and mouth-to-airway methods of artificial respiration with the chest-pressure arm-lift methods. N Engl J Med 1958;258:671-7. 3.Kouwenhoven WB, Jude JR, Knickerbocker GG: Closed-chest cardiac massage. JAMA 1960;173:1064-7. 4.張朝煜。成人高級心臟救命術的歷史回顧。台灣醫界雜誌2009;52:34-6。 5.National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council: Cardiopulmonary resuscitation: statement by the Ad Hoc Committee on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation of the Division of Medical Sciences. JAMA 1966;198:372-9. 6.Standards for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA 1974;227(suppl):833-68. 7.Standards for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA 1980;244:453-509. 8.National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council: Standards for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA 1986;255:2905-89. 9.American Heart Association. Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). JAMA 1992;286:2135-302. 10.American Heart Association in collaboration with International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation: Guidelines 2000 for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) and Emergency Cardiovascular Care (ECC). Circulation 2000;102 (supplI):1-384. 11.American Heart Association. 2005 American Heart Association Guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and emergency cardiac care (ECC). Circulation 2005;112:1-211. 12.2010 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation 2010;81:e1-330. 13.2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation 2010;122;S640-933. 14.European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2010. Resuscitation 2010;81:1219-76. 15.2015 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2015;132:S313-589. 16.Saxon LA. Sudden cardiac death: epidemiology and temporal trends. Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2005;6 Suppl 2:S12-20. 17.Sasson C, Rogers MA, Dahl J, Kellermann AL. Predictors of survival from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010;3:63-81. 18.2015 International Consensus on Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care Science with Treatment Recommendations. Resuscitation 2015;95:e1-261. 19.European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015. Resuscitation 2015;95:1-311. 20.American Heart Association. ACLS - Instructor-Led Training. Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://cpr.heart.org/AHAECC/CPRAndECC/Training/HealthcareProfessional/AdvancedCardiovascularLifeSupportACLS/UCM_475719_ACLS---Instructor-Led-Training.jsp 21.植根法律網。緊急醫療救護法。Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.rootlaw.com.tw/LawArticle.aspx?LawID=A040170030005000-1020116 22.衛生福利部醫事司。醫院緊急醫療能力分級評定。Retrieved February 11, 2018, from https://dep.mohw.gov.tw/DOMA/np-980-106.html 23.中華民國高級心臟救命術聯合委員會。聯委會簡介。Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.seccm.org.tw/acls1.asp 24.中華民國高級心臟救命術聯合委員會。高級心臟救命術訓練課程規範。Retrieved February 11, 2018, from http://www.seccm.org.tw/acls2.asp 25.Cummins RO, Ornato JP, Thies WH, Pepe PE. Improving survival from sudden cardiac arrest: the chain of survival concept. Circulation 1991;83:1832-47. 26.Cummins, R.O., Chamberlain, D., Hazinski, M.F., et al. Recommended guidelines for reviewing, reporting, and conducting research on in-hospital resuscitation: the in-hospital ‘Utstein style’. American Heart Association. Circulation, 1997;95:2213-39. 27.Nichol G, Thomas E, Callaway CW, et al. Regional variation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest incidence and outcome. JAMA. 2008;300:1423-31. 28.Abella BS, Alvarado JP, Myklebust H, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during in-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA 2005;293:305-10. 29.Wik L, Kramer-Johansen J, Myklebust H, et al. Quality of cardiopulmonary resuscitation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JAMA 2005;293:299-304. 30.Samson RA, Nadkarni VM, Meaney PA, Carey SM, Berg MD, Berg RA. Outcomes of in-hospital ventricular fibrillation in children. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2328-39. 31.Atkins DL, Everson-Stewart S, Sears GK, et al. Epidemiology and outcomes from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in children: the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Epistry-Cardiac Arrest. Circulation. 2009;119:1484-91. 32.Arthur Jr W. Factors that influence skill decay and retention: a quantitative review and analysis. Human Perform 1998;11:57-102. 33.Patrick J. Skill Retention. Training: research and practice. Academic Press 1992:96-107. 34.Einspruch EL, Lynch B, Auferheide TP, Nichol G, Becker L. Retention of CPR skills learned in a traditional AHA Heartsaver course versus 30-minute video training: a controlled randomized study. Resuscitation 2007;74:476-86. 35.Reder S, Cummings P, Quan L. Comparison of three instructional methods for teaching cardiopulmonary resusciation and use of an automatic external defibrillator to high school students. Resuscitation 2006;69:443-53. 36.Hamilton R. Nurses’ knowledge and skill retention following cardiopulmonary resuscitation training: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs 2005;51:288-97. 37.Yang CW, Yen ZS, McGowan JE, et al. A systematic review of retention of adult advanced life support knowledge and skills in healthcare providers. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1055-60. 38.Seethala RR, Esposito EC, Abella BS. Approaches to improving cardiac arrest resuscitation performance. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2010;16:196-202. 39.Kohn KT CJ, Donaldson MS, editors: To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington DC: Committee on Quality of Health Care In America. Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press 1999. 40.Leonard M, Graham S, Bonacum D. The human factor: the critical importance of effective teamwork and communication in providing safe care. Qual Saf Health Care 2004;13(suppl 1):i85-90. 41.Manser T. Teamwork and patient safety in dynamic domains of healthcare: a review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2009;53:143-51. 42.Davenport DL, Henderson WG, Mosca CL, et al. Risk-adjusted morbidity in teaching hospitals correlates with reported levels of communication and collaboration on surgical teams but not with scale measures of teamwork climate, safety climate, or working conditions. J Am Coll Surg 2007;205:778-84. 43.Wheelan SA, Burchill CN, Tilin F. The link between teamwork and patients’outcomes in intensive care units. Am J Crit Care 2003;12:527-34. 44.Nundy S, Mukherjee A, Sexton JB et al. Impact of preoperative briefings on operating room delays: a preliminary report. Arch Surg. 2008;143:1068-72. 45.Shortell SM, Zimmerman JE, Rousseau DM et al. The performance of intensive care units: does good management make a difference? Medical Care 1994;32:508-25. 46.Baggs JG, Ryan SA, Phelps CE, Richeson JF, Johnson JE. The association between interdisciplinary collaboration and patient outcomes in a medical intensive care unit. Heart Lung 1992;21:18-24. 47.Hunziker S, Buhlmann C, Tschan F, et al. Brief leadership instructions improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a high-fidelity simulation: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1086-91. 48.Makinen M, Aune S, Niemi-Murola L, et al. Assessment of CPR-D skills of nurses in Goteborg, Sweden and Espoo, Finland: teaching leadership makes a difference. Resuscitation 2007;72:264-9. 49.Schull MJ, Ferris LE, Tu JV, et al. Problems for clinical judgement: 3. Thinking clearly in an emergency. CMAJ 2001;164(8):1170-5. 50.Morey JC, Simon R, Jay GD, et al. Error reduction and performance improvement in the emergency department through formal teamwork training: evaluation results of the MedTeams project. Health Serv Res. 2002;37:1553-81. 51.DeVita MA, Schaefer J, Lutz J, Dongilli T, Wang H. Improving medical crisis team performance. Crit Care Med 2004;32:S61-5. 52.Thomas EJ, Taggart B, Crandell S, et al. Teaching teamwork during the Neonatal Resuscitation Program: a randomized trial. J Perinatol 2007;27:409-14. 53.Cooper S. Developing leaders for advanced life support: evaluation of a training programme. Resuscitation 2001;49:33-8. 54.Hunziker S, Buhlmann C, Tschan F, et al. Brief leadership instructions improve cardiopulmonary resuscitation in a highfidelity simulation: a randomized controlled trial. Crit Care Med 2010;38:1086-91. 55.Perkins G, Lockey A. The advanced life support provider course. BMJ 2002;325:S81. 56.Baskett PJ, Nolan JP, Handley A, Soar J, Biarent D, Richmond S. European Resuscitation Council guidelines for resuscitation 2005, Section 9. Principles of training in resuscitation. Resuscitation 2005;67:S181-9. 57.Napier F, Davies RP, Baldock C, Stevens H, Lockey AS, Bullock I, et al. Validation for a scoring system of the ALS cardiac arrest simulation test (CASTest) Resuscitation 2009;80:1034-8. 58.Perkins GD. Simulation in resuscitation training. Resuscitation 2007;73:202-11. 59.Fletcher GCL, McGeorge P, Flin RH, Glavin RJ, Maran NJ. The role of non-technical skills in anaesthesia: a review of current literature. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:418-29. 60.Reader T, Flin R, Mearns K, Cuthbertson B. Developing a team performance framework for the intensive care unit. Crit Care Med 2009;37:1787-93. 61.Fletcher G, Flin R, McGeorge P, Glavin RJ, Maran NJ, Patey R. Anaesthetists’ nontechnical skills (ants): evaluation of a behavioural marker system. Br J Anaesth 2003;90:580-8. 62.Sevdalis N, Lyons M, Healey AN, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent CA. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery: construct validation with expert vs. novice raters. Ann Surg 2009;249:1047-51. 63.Hull L, Arora S, Kassab E, Kneebone RL, Sevdalis N. Observational teamwork assessment for surgery (otas): content validation and tool refinement. J Am Coll Surg 2011;212:234-43. 64.Sevdalis N, Davis RE, Koutantji M, Undre S, Darzi A, Vincent CA. Reliability of a revised NOTECHS scale for use in surgical teams. Am J Surg 2008;196:184-90. 65.Cooper S, Cant R, Porter J. Rating medical emergency teamwork performance: development of the team emergency assessment measure (TEAM). Resuscitation 2010;81:446-52. 66.Walker S, Brett S, McKay A, Lambden S, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. Observational skill-based clinical assessment tool for resuscitation (oscar): development and validation. Resuscitation 2011;82:835-44. 67.McKay A, Walker ST, Brett SJ, Vincent C, Sevdalis N. Team performance in resuscitation teams: comparison and critique of two recently developed scoring tools. Resuscitation. 2012;83:1478-83. 68.Bhanji F, Mancini ME, Sinz E, Rodgers DL, McNeil MA, Hoadley TA, et al. Part 16: education, Implementation, and Teams. 2010 American Heart Association guidelines for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2010;122:S920-33. 69.Bhanji F, Donoghue AJ, Wolff MS, Flores GE, Halamek LP, Berman JM, et al. Part 14: education: 2015 American Heart Association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2015;132:S561-73. 70.Saving American Hearts, Inc. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from http://beatingheartslifesavingcertifications.com/acmeca1sibrb.html 71.Saving American Hearts, Inc. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from http://www.savingamericanhearts.com/acmeca3tavtc.html 72.Saving American Hearts, Inc. Retrieved May 15, 2018, from http://beatingheartslifesavingcertifications.com/acmeca5tasvt.html 73.Hoffman KI, Abrahamson S. The 'cost-effectiveness' of Sim One. J Med Educ 1975;50(12 Pt1):1127-8. 74.Abrahamson S. Sim One--a patient simulator ahead of its time. Caduceus 1997;13:29-41. 75.Forrest FC, Taylor M. High level simulators in medical education. Hosp Med 1998;59:653-5. 76.Gordon JA, Wilkerson WM, Shaffer DW, Armstrong EG. 'Practicing' medicine without risk: students' and educators' responses to high-fidelity patient simulation. Acad Med 2001;76:469-72. 77.Garden A, Robinson B, Weller J, Wilson L, Crone D. Education to address medical error--a role for high fidelity patient simulation. N Z Med J 2002;115:133-4. 78.Gaba DM. Improving anesthesiologists’ performance by simulation reality. Anesthesiology 1992;76:491-4. 79.Forrest FC, Taylor MA, Postlethwaite K, Aspinall R. Use of a high-fidelity simulator to develop testing of the technical performance of novice anaesthetists. Br J Anaesth 2002;88:338-44. 80.Holcomb JB, Dumire RD, Crommett JW, et al. Evaluation of trauma team performance using an advanced human patient simulator for resuscitation training. J Trauma 2002;52:1078-85. 81.Larsson JE, Hayes-Roth B, Gaba DM, Smith BE. Evaluation of a medical diagnosis system using simulator test scenarios. Artif Intell Med 1997;11:119-40. 82.Palmisano JM, Akingbola OA, Moler FW, Custer JR. Simulated pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: initial events and response times of a hospital arrest team. Respir Care 1994;39:725-9. 83.Rosen MA, Hunt EA, Pronovost PJ, et al: In situ simulation in continuing education for the health care professions: A systematic review. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012;32:243-54. 84.Weinstock PH, Kappus LJ, Garden A, et al: Simulation at the point of care: Reduced-cost, in situ training via a mobile cart. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2009;10:176-81. 85.Miller D, Crandall C, Washington C III, et al: Improving teamwork and communication in trauma care through in situ simulations. Acad Emerg Med 2012;19:608-12. 86.Wayne DB, Didwania A, Feinglass J, et al: Simulation-based education improves quality of care during cardiac arrest team responses at an academic teaching hospital: A case-control study. Chest 2008;133:56-61. 87.Andreatta P, Saxton E, Thompson M, et al: Simulation-based mock codes significantly correlate with improved pediatric patient cardiopulmonary arrest survival rates. Pediatr Crit Care Med 2011;12:33-8. 88.Bruppacher HR, Alam SK, LeBlanc VR, et al: Simulation-based training improves physicians’ performance in patient care in highstakes clinical setting of cardiac surgery. Anesthesiology 2010;112:985-92. 89.Draycott TJ, Crofts JF, Ash JP, et al: Improving neonatal outcome through practical shoulder dystocia training. Obstet Gynecol 2008;112:14-20. 90.Theilen U, Leonard P, Jones P, et al: Regular in situ simulation training of paediatric medical emergency team improves hospital response to deteriorating patients. Resuscitation 2013;84:218-22. 91.Cheng A, Lockey A, Bhanji F, Lin Y, Hunt EA, Lang E. The use of high-fidelity manikins for advanced life support training--A systematic review and meta-analysis. Resuscitation 2015;93:142-9. 92.King HB, Battles J, Baker DP, et al. TeamSTEPPS™: Team Strategies and Tools to Enhance Performance and Patient Safety. In: Henriksen K, Battles JB, Keyes MA, et al., editors. Advances in Patient Safety: New Directions and Alternative Approaches (Vol. 3: Performance and Tools). Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008 Aug. 93.Ringsted C, Lippert F, Hesselfeldt R, et al. Assessment of advanced life support competence when combining different test methods-reliability and validity. Resuscitation 2007;75:153-60. 94.Perkins GD, Davies RP, Stallard N, Bullock I, Stevens H, Lockey A. Advanced life support cardiac arrest scenario test evaluation. Resuscitation 2007;75:484-90. 95.Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986;35:382-5. 96.Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biom 1977;45:255-68. 97.Downing SM. Reliability: on the reproducibility of assessment data. Med Educ 2004;38:1006-12. 98.Christie J, O'Halloran P, Stevenson M. Planning a cluster randomized controlled trial: methodological issues. Nurs Res. 2009;58:128-34. 99.Sosik JJ, Jung DI. Work-group characteristics and performance in collectivistic and individualistic cultures. J Soc Psychol 2002;142:5-23. 100.Schuwirth LWT, van der Vleuten CPM. A plea for new psychometric models in educational assessment. Med Educ 2006;40:296-300. | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/71048 | - |
dc.description.abstract | 研究背景
高級救命術是醫療照護者不可或缺的急救技能,近來的高級救命術指引中,強調團隊合作對於急救品質的重要性,建議在教育訓練中導入團隊合作訓練的架構元素,並發展有效的評估工具來進行評核與回饋。目前在台灣對於高級救命術的訓練中,仍缺乏建置急救團隊合作訓練的評估方式、訓練規範與模式。 材料與方法 本研究內容及其研究方法包含: 研究一:發展急救團隊合作模式NTUH Airway-Circulation-Leadership-Support (NTUH A-C-L-S)及其訓練架構。首先藉由觀察性研究,邀請三位專家透過20部急救團隊影像回顧(Video review)進行急救團隊現況問題分析,並探討重要缺失及可能原因;接著採用質性內容分析研究法(qualitative content analysis),研究者根據上述問題原因分析提出解決方案策略,並利用質性內容分析研究法中的總結性內容分析(summative approach)發展急救團隊合作架構NTUH A-C-L-S、及其訓練課程與示範影片。 研究二: 發展急救團隊表現評估表。首先由三位專家制定新的急救團隊表現評估表各項評量指標及尺規定義;接著驗證急救團隊表現評估表之信效度,包括:內容效度之檢測、評估者間信度(Inter-rater Reliability)、評估表內部一致性(Internal Consistency)及效標效度(Criterion-related Validity)。 研究三: 比較傳統高級救命術訓練與創新之急救團隊模式NTUH A-C-L-S訓練成效。採用群體隨機對照實驗研究設計,受試者急救團隊以病房為單位隨機分派為對照組及實驗組,兩組皆會接受急救核心課程:包括1.5個小時的授課加上1.5小時的核心技能演練,實驗組在急救核心課程之外,會有20分鐘的急救團隊合作模式NTUH A-C-L-S介紹,包括10分鐘的說明以及10分鐘的示範影片討論。接著在各個病房中進行實境高擬真情境模擬(in-situ high-fidelity simulation),比較兩組團隊急救效率之變項(即各種關鍵急救措施介入之時效,包括:確認脈搏的時間(Time to checking pulse)、開始胸部按壓的時間(Time to first chest compression)、開始正壓通氣的時間(Time to first ambu-bagging)、開始第一次去顫電擊的時間(Time to first defibrillation)、開始施打急救藥物的時間(Time to first medication)、開始嘗試氣管內管插管的時間(Time to first intubation attempt))、及急救效果之變項(即各種關鍵急救措施介入之品質,包括本研究所發展及驗證之急救團隊表現評估表總體分數及各分項分數之比較)。 結果與討論 研究一的問題分析中,發現急救團隊在急救過程中問題之原因類型有技術性技能(Technical skills)及非技術性技能(Non-technical skills)兩大類,其中非技術性技能包括角色分配(Role assignment)、狀況察覺與監測(Situation awareness / monitoring)、相互支援(Mutual support)、溝通(Communication)等問題面向。研究者透過質性分析研究法,針對急救團隊之問題原因與解決策略解構出創新之急救團隊分工架構NTUH A-C-L-S及其對應之執行任務與適當位置,並據此發展創新之急救團隊合作訓練課程與示範影片。 研究二中透過三位專家共識後擬定之評估表共有17項評估指標,評量尺規採用完全做到(Fully achieved)(2分)、部分做到(Partially achieved)(1分)、及沒有做到(None achieved)(0分)之評分系統。針對評估表進行驗證的研究中,S-CVI/UA及S-CVI/Ave分別為0.94及0.99,整體分數的評估者間信度ICC為0.990 (0.979-0.995),評估表整體的內部一致性Cronbach alpha為0.99。急重症組在整體分數上明顯高於非急重症組(29.07 vs. 22.27, p <0 .001)。 研究三中總共召募台大醫院泛內科及泛外科共15個病房、299名醫護人員,其中對照組7個病房、共29組急救團隊(149人),實驗組8個病房、共27組急救團隊(150人)。在急救效率變項中,實驗組比起對照組在確認脈搏的時間(Time to checking pulse) (4.04 vs. 15.15, p<0.05)、開始胸部按壓的時間(Time to first chest compression) (21.46 vs. 43.55, p<0.01)、開始第一次去顫電擊的時間(Time to first defibrillation) (123.61 vs. 227.05, p<0.05)、及開始嘗試氣管內管插管的時間(Time to first intubation attempt) (244.31 vs. 325.38, p<0.05)有顯著的縮短。在急救效果的變項中,實驗組比起對照組在急救團隊表現評估表有顯著較高的總分(74.65 vs. 54.48, p<0.05)。 結論 根據現有急救團隊問題分析與質性內容分析而發展出之創新急救團隊合作模式NTUH A-C-L-S及其訓練架構與示範影片,能夠讓醫療照護者在高擬真情境模擬的環境下,提供較有效率及效果之急救品質。 | zh_TW |
dc.description.abstract | Research Background
Advanced life support (ALS) has been important resuscitation skills for healthcare providers and the importance of teamwork has been emphasized in ALS guidelines recently. Implementation of teamwork models and development of valid assessment tools for ALS training are currently recommended. In Taiwan, implementation and evaluation of resuscitation teamwork training are still lacking. Materials and Methods The contents and methods of this research include: Research 1: Developing an ALS teamwork training model NTUH Airway-Circulation-Leadership-Support (NTUH A-C-L-S). Firstly through an observational study, three experts were invited to review 20 resuscitation videotapes, analyze current problems of resuscitation teams and explore possible causes. Then through the summative approach of qualitative content analysis, researchers proposed the strategies of solutions based on problem analysis, and developed the resuscitation teamwork training model NTUH A-C-L-S. Research 2: Developing an assessment form for resuscitation team performance. Three experts were invited to establish the items and rubrics of new assessment form for resuscitation performance. Then the validity and reliability of the assessment tool were verified by estimation of content validity, inter-rater reliability, internal consistency, and criterion-related validity. Research 3: Comparing the effectiveness of traditional resuscitation training and innovative resuscitation teamwork NTUH A-C-L-S training. Cluster randomized controlled study design was applied and general wards recruited were randomly assigned into control group and experimental group. Both groups received the resuscitation core courses, including 1.5-hour didactic lecture and 1.5-hour resuscitation skills training. For experimental group, a 20-minute introduction of teamwork model NTUH A-C-L-S, including 10-minute illustration and 10-minute video-based demonstration, was applied in addition after the core courses. Each resuscitation team, grouped of 4-5 medical staff from the same ward, performed resuscitation during a 10-minute in-situ high-fidelity simulation. Effectiveness of resuscitation was compared between two groups, including efficiency (including “Time to checking pulse”, “Time to first chest compression”, “Time to first ambu-bagging”, “Time to first defibrillation”, “Time to first medication”, and “Time to first intubation attempt”) and quality of resuscitation (the scores of each item and in total of the validated assessment form for resuscitation performance). Results and Discussions In problem analysis of resuscitation performance of research 1, two categories, including technical skills and non-technical skills, were identified for causal analysis. Non-technical skills were further categorized into domains of role assignment, situation awareness / monitoring, mutual support, and communication. Through summative approach of qualitative content analysis, researchers formulated an innovative resuscitation teamwork model NTUH A-C-L-S, including respective tasks and suitable position of each team member, based on results of causal analysis and possible strategies of solution. The training model and demonstration videos were also developed based on the innovative teamwork model. In research 2, through consensus of 3 experts, an assessment form including 17 evaluation items was formulated with rubrics of fully achieved (score of 2), partially achieved (score of 1), and non-achieved (score of 0). S-CVI/UA and S-CVI/Ave of the assessment form were 0.94 and 0.99 respectively. Inter-rater reliability of the total scores was examined by intra class correlation, which was 0.990 (0.979–0.995). The overall Cronbach alpha was 0.99. The critical group had significantly higher total scores than did the non-critical group (29.07 vs. 22.27, p < 0.001). In research 3, 299 healthcare providers from 15 general wards of department of internal medicine and surgery in National Taiwan University Hospital were recruited. Among them, 7 wards (29 teams composed of 149 healthcare providers in total) were assigned as control group, and the other 8 wards (27 teams composed of 150 healthcare providers in total) were assigned as experimental group. As for efficiency parameters, experimental group had significantly shorter “Time to checking pulse” (4.04 vs. 15.15, p<0.05), “Time to first chest compression” (21.46 vs. 43.55, p<0.01), “Time to first defibrillation” (123.61 vs. 227.05, p<0.05), and “Time to first intubation attempt” (244.31 vs. 325.38, p<0.05) than control group. As for quality of resuscitation performance, experimental group had significantly higher total scores (74.65 vs. 54.48, p<0.05) than control group. Conclusions An innovative resuscitation teamwork model NTUH A-C-L-S was developed based on problems analysis and qualitative content analysis of current resuscitation performance. Application of this training model and demonstration videos for healthcare providers has been shown to result in more effective resuscitation performance in high-fidelity simulation. | en |
dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2021-06-17T04:50:20Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 ntu-107-D00849018-1.pdf: 2575700 bytes, checksum: 85f498cf545277ed5585859bc02bfa54 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2018 | en |
dc.description.tableofcontents | 目 錄
誌謝 I 中文摘要 II 英文摘要 V 目錄 VIII 圖目錄 X 表目錄 XI 第一章 研究背景Research Background 1 第一節 高級救命術之定義、範疇與演進 1 第二節 高級救命術訓練之發展 4 第三節 高級救命術學習之現況與展望 7 第二章 文獻回顧Literature Review 10 第一節 醫療團隊合作訓練模式之發展與訓練成效相關研究10 第二節 醫療照護者高級救命術訓練成效之評估工具相關研究13 第三節 利用高擬真模擬進行急救訓練之發展與成效相關研究16 第四節 小結(Summary)/知識鴻溝(Knowledge Gap) 17 第三章 研究目的Study Objectives 19 第四章 材料與方法Materials and Methods 21 研究一 發展急救團隊合作模式及其訓練架構 21 研究二 發展急救團隊表現評估表 24 研究三 比較傳統高級救命術訓練與創新之急救團隊模式訓練成效28 第五章 結果Results 31 研究一 發展急救團隊合作模式NTUH A-C-L-S 31 一、急救團隊現況問題分析之結果 31 二、發展急救團隊合作架構NTUH A-C-L-S及其訓練課程37 研究二 發展急救團隊表現評估表 50 一、各項評量指標 50 二、評量尺規之定義 51 三、評估表之驗證 53 研究三 比較傳統高級救命術訓練與創新急救團隊模式訓練成效59 第六章 討論Discussions 65 第一節 創新急救團隊模式NTUH A-C-L-S訓練成效之討論 65 第二節 急救團隊現況之問題討論 75 第三節 急救團隊合作模式NTUH A-C-L-S之發展特色 76 第四節 急救團隊合作課程發展之討論 82 第五節 急救團隊表現評估表發展之討論 83 第六節 研究限制 84 第七章 結論與未來研究Conclusions and Future Studies87 參考文獻 88 附錄 98 | |
dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
dc.title | 發展創新之高級救命術急救團隊合作模式「NTUH Airway-Circulation-Leadership-Support (NTUH A-C-L-S)」並評估其訓練成效 | zh_TW |
dc.title | Development of a Novel Teamwork Model “NTUH Airway-Circulation-Leadership-Support (NTUH A-C-L-S)” for Advanced Life Support Team Training | en |
dc.type | Thesis | |
dc.date.schoolyear | 106-2 | |
dc.description.degree | 博士 | |
dc.contributor.coadvisor | 馬惠明 | |
dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 朱宗信,季瑋珠,李文宗,林志豪 | |
dc.subject.keyword | 高級救命術,評估表,高擬真情境模擬,非技術性技能,團隊合作, | zh_TW |
dc.subject.keyword | advanced life support,assessment form,high-fidelity simulation,non-technical skill,teamwork, | en |
dc.relation.page | 98 | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU201802202 | |
dc.rights.note | 有償授權 | |
dc.date.accepted | 2018-07-31 | |
dc.contributor.author-college | 公共衛生學院 | zh_TW |
dc.contributor.author-dept | 流行病學與預防醫學研究所 | zh_TW |
顯示於系所單位: | 流行病學與預防醫學研究所 |
文件中的檔案:
檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
---|---|---|---|
ntu-107-1.pdf 目前未授權公開取用 | 2.52 MB | Adobe PDF |
系統中的文件,除了特別指名其著作權條款之外,均受到著作權保護,並且保留所有的權利。