Comparison of two paediatric resuscitation charts for ease of use

• Published in: Resuscitation Vol. 38; no. 3; pp. 151 - 155
• Main Authors: Alexander, Ratan, E El-Moalem, Habib
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Shannon Elsevier Ireland Ltd 01.09.1998; Elsevier
• Subjects: Adolescent; Advanced life support; Age Factors; Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy; Anesthesiology; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - administration & dosage; Anti-Arrhythmia Agents - therapeutic use; Atropine - administration & dosage; Atropine - therapeutic use; Attitude of Health Personnel; Audiovisual Aids; Biological and medical sciences; Body Height; Body Weight; Child; Child, Preschool; Clinical Competence; Consultants; Cross-Over Studies; Emergency and intensive care: neonates and children. Prematurity. Sudden death; Humans; Intensive care medicine; Medical sciences; Medical Staff, Hospital; Paediatric resuscitation; Pharmaceutical Preparations - administration & dosage; Resuscitation - methods; Time Factors; Paediatric resuscitation; Child; Advanced life support; Human; Assay; Cardiocirculatory arrest; Chemotherapy; Cardiovascular disease; Cardiopulmonary; Therapeutic protocol; Age; Comparative study; Resuscitation; Execution time
• ISSN: 0300-9572; 1873-1570
• DOI: 10.1016/S0300-9572(98)00070-7

We have compared the ease and speed of use of two published paediatric resuscitation charts, the Burke and Bowden chart and the Oakley chart. Twenty general anaesthetists each answered 11 questions on resuscitation data for five paediatric patients of different weights, heights and ages. Data was recorded for the five patients using one chart and then repeated for the same patients using the second with the order of use of chart being randomised (n=100 patients for each chart). There were significantly fewer patients for whom mistakes were made with the Burke and Bowden chart compared to the modified Oakley chart (21 and 46, respectively, P<0.001). Only one physician recorded the resuscitation data correctly for all five patients with each chart. The Burke and Bowden chart was also statistically significantly faster to use than the Oakley chart (52.7 s (range 31–103) versus 64 s (range 44–115), respectively (P<0.001)). A change in format and content of each chart may be required to make them both more user friendly especially when used under stress.