An exploratory study of distractions during the induction phase of pediatric procedural sedation with propofol
Authors' conclusion
Distractions impacted sedation team workflow but had no association with patient outcomes.
Study context
- Population
- Children with acute lymphocytic leukemia undergoing propofol sedation for oncology procedures outside the OR
- Participants
- 45 video recordings
- Outcome
- Frequency, source, target and impact of distractions during induction of procedural sedation
Methodological detailsexploratory, video-recorded
- Exploratory
- Video-recorded
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Frequency, source, target and impact of distractions during propofol induction
- Total distractions
- 567
- Distractions per induction, mean (±SD)
- 12.6 (±5.6)
- Mean induction time
- 3 min 12 s
- Extraneous events (most common source), % of all distractions
- 55% (312/567)
- Distractions resulting in multitasking
- 46%, n = 262
- Distractions causing brief or complete disruption from a primary task
- 17%
- Sedation nurses impacted (most often)
- 62%
- Impact score of coordination issues (Likert scale), mean ± SD
- 3.7 ± 1.0
- Impact score of usability issues (Likert scale), mean ± SD
- 3.5 ± 0.9
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Safety
- No significant association between distractions and adverse events or induction length
Original publication
An exploratory study of distractions during the induction phase of pediatric procedural sedation with propofol. Paediatr Anaesth. Published 7 March 2023. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →