METHODS: This was a prospective single-center randomized study. A total of 23 dyads for a simulation scenario were included: 12 in the control group and 11 in the cognitive aid group. In the cognitive aid group, the cognitive aid was read by the same facilitator for every scenario.
RESULTS: No significant difference concerning the duration of the procedure was identified between the cognitive aid and control groups: 412 s [342; 420] vs. 374 s [338;402], respectively (p = 0.781). Nevertheless, there were significantly fewer deviations from hygiene guidelines and improved prevention of air embolism in the cognitive aid group compared with the control group.
CONCLUSIONS: The UVC insertion time was similar between the control and cognitive aid groups. Moreover, cognitive aid can limit infectious complications or air embolism by allowing caregivers to follow UVC placement standards.
方法:这是一项前瞻性单中心随机研究。总共包括23个模拟情景的二元组:对照组12个,认知辅助组11个。在认知援助组中,每个场景的认知辅助工具都由同一主持人阅读.
结果:认知辅助组和对照组之间在手术持续时间方面没有显着差异:412s[342;420]vs.374秒[338;402],分别(p=0.781)。然而,与对照组相比,认知辅助组对卫生指南的偏离显著减少,并且空气栓塞的预防得到了改善.
结论:对照组和认知辅助组的UVC插入时间相似。此外,认知辅助可以通过允许护理人员遵循UVC放置标准来限制感染性并发症或空气栓塞.