Implementation of a postarrest debriefing tool in a veterinary university hospital

Objective To describe the use of a postarrest debriefing tool (DBT) within a university teaching hospital and to evaluate user perceptions of the tool. Design Observational study over a 1-year period and associated hospital clinical personnel survey. Setting University teaching hospital. Interventions Qualitative data surrounding the use and utility of the DBT were analyzed, as well as survey results. Measurements and Main Results Forty-four arrests occurred during the study period. Debriefing was performed after 26 of 44 (59%) cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) events, of which 22 of 26 (85%) were recorded using the DBT and four without the DBT. Return of spontaneous circulation did not significantly affect the use of the DBT (p = 0.753). Most events in which debriefing was not performed occurred outside of business hours (13/18; 72%). The most frequent positive debriefing comments related to cooperation/coordination within the team (22/167; 13%). The most frequent negative debriefing comments concerned equipment issues (36/167; 22%). Of the action points generated, 57% (34/60) were directed at equipment use/availability. Teams reported that emergency drugs were appropriately administered in 21 of 22 (95%) cases. In contrast, closed loop communication was reportedly only used during 6 of 22 (27%) events. The hospital survey response rate was 56 of 338 (17%) clinical staff, of whom 37 of 56 (66%) agreed or strongly agreed that debriefing had improved team performance during CPR. Overall, 33 of 56 (60%) staff felt that the DBT had improved the debriefing process at the hospital. However, 3 of 56 (5%) staff members felt that they were unable to state their opinions in a blame-free environment during debriefing. Conclusions Implementation of a DBT enabled formal identification of strengths and training needs of resuscitation teams, and its implementation was viewed positively by the majority of hospital staff. However, further refinement of the tool and prospective studies evaluating its efficacy in improving outcome are warranted.