Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

The cognitive aids in medicine assessment tool (CMAT) applied to five neonatal resuscitation algorithms

Journal of Perinatology volume 37, pages 387–393 (2017)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

The International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (ILCOR) provides recommendations on neonatal resuscitation training and practice, which includes a template for a decision-making algorithm. We evaluated the design properties of the ILCOR algorithm and four adaptations by member resuscitation organizations using the validated Cognitive Aids in Medicine Assessment Tool (CMAT).

Study Design:

Two experts rated five neonatal resuscitation algorithms against the CMAT and against medical device design criteria.

Results:

The ILCOR algorithm scored 32 of a possible 60 CMAT points, showing an adherence rate to CMAT of 53%. The ILCOR algorithm scored higher than the design variations by member organizations. Nonetheless, there are design limitations in the ILCOR algorithm.

Conclusion:

In principle, cognitive aids can improve neonatal resuscitation team performance; however, a considered design process that incorporates the full complexity of the ‘procedure as performed’ is needed to improve future versions of the algorithm for incorporation in international guidelines.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Perlman JM, Wyllie J, Kattwinkel J, Wyckoff MH, Aziz K, Guinsburg R et al. Part 7: Neonatal resuscitation 2015 international consensus on cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care science with treatment recommendations. Circulation 2015; 132 (16 suppl 1): S204–S241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Chiniara G, Cole G, Brisbin K, Huffman D, Cragg B, Lamacchia M et al. Simulation in healthcare: a taxonomy and a conceptual framework for instructional design and media selection. Med Teach 2013; 35 (8): e1380–e1395.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Halamek LP . The simulated delivery-room environment as the future modality for acquiring and maintaining skills in fetal and neonatal resuscitation. Semin Fetal Neonat Med 2008; 13 (6): 448–453.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Gaba DM . Perioperative cognitive aids in anesthesia: what, who, how, and why bother? Anesth Analg 2013; 117 (5): 1033–1036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Sintchenko V, Coiera EW . Which clinical decisions benefit from automation? A task complexity approach. Int J Med Inform 2003; 70 (2): 309–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Evans D, McCahon R, Barley M, Norris A, Khajuria A, Moppett I . Cognitive aids in medicine assessment tool (CMAT): preliminary validation of a novel tool for the assessment of emergency cognitive aids. Anaesthesia 2015; 70 (8): 922–932.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Marshall S . The use of cognitive aids during emergencies in anesthesia: a review of the literature. Anesth Analg 2013; 117 (5): 1162–1171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. American National Standards Institute/Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation. HE74:2001 Human Factors Design Process for Medical Devices. Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation: Arlington, VA, USA, 2001.

  9. Kaczorowski J, Levitt C, Hammond M, Outerbridge E, Grad R, Rothman A et al. Retention of neonatal resuscitation skills and knowledge: a randomized controlled trial. Fam Med 1998; 30: 705–711.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Goldhaber-Fiebert SN, Howard SK . Implementing emergency manuals: can cognitive aids help translate best practices for patient care during acute events? Anesth Analg 2013; 117 (5): 1149–1161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zaichkin J, Weiner GM (eds). Textbook of Neonatal Resuscitation (NRP), 7th edn. American Academy of Pediatrics: Elk Grove Village, IL, 2016, pp 328.

  12. Howard SK, Chu LF, Goldhaber-Fiebert SN, Gaba DM, Harrison TK . Emergency Manual: Cognitive aids for perioperative critical events 2nd edn. Stanford Anesthesia Cognitive Aid Group, 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  13. American Academy of Pediatrics, American Heart Association NRP Neonatal Resuscitation Textbook, 6th edn, AAP Books, 2011.

  14. Marshall SD, Sanderson P, McIntosh CA, Kolawole H . The effect of two cognitive aid designs on team functioning during intra-operative anaphylaxis emergencies: a multi-centre simulation study. Anaesthesia 2016; 71 (4): 389–404.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Nelson K, Shilkofski N, Haggerty J, Vera K, Saliski M, Hunt E . Cognitive aids do not prompt initiation of cardiopulmonary resuscitation in simulated pediatric cardiopulmonary arrest. Simul Healthc 2007; 2 (1):54 (abstract 15).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dempsey E, Pammi M, Ryan A, Barrington K . Standardised formal resuscitation training programmes for reducing mortality and morbidity in newborn infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 9: CD009106.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bould MD, Hayter MA, Campbell DM, Chandra DB, Joo HS, Naik VN . Cognitive aid for neonatal resuscitation: a prospective single-blinded randomized controlled trial. Br J Anaesthesia 2009; 103 (4): 570–575.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fuerch JH, Yamada NK, Coelho PR, Lee HC, Halamek LP . Impact of a novel decision support tool on adherence to neonatal resuscitation program algorithm. Resuscitation 2015; 88: 52–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Guidance on the design presentation and use of emergency and abnormal checklists. Safety Regulation Group, Civil Aviation Authority UK 2006.

  20. Wyckoff MH, Aziz K, Escobedo MB, Kapadia VS, Kattwinkel J, Perlman JM et al. Part 13: Neonatal resuscitation 2015 american heart association guidelines update for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and emergency cardiovascular care. Circulation 2015; 132 (18 suppl 2): S543–S560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Wyllie J, Bruinenberg J, Roehr CC, Rüdiger M, Trevisanuto D, Urlesberger B . European resuscitation council guidelines for resuscitation 2015: section 7. resuscitation and support of transition of babies at birth. Resuscitation 2015; 95: 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Newborn Resuscitation Algorithm 2015. Available at http://www.resuscitationcouncil.co.za/newborn-resuscitation-algorithm (cited on 2 April 2016).

  23. ANZCOR Neonatal Flowchart. Available at http://resus.org.au/guidelines/flowcharts-3/ (cited on 2 April 2016).

  24. Blandford A, Furniss D, Vincent C . Patient safety and interactive medical devices: Realigning work as imagined and work as done. Clin Risk 2014; 20 (5): 107–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Tofel-Grehl C, Feldon DF . Cognitive task analysis–based training a meta-analysis of studies. J Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making 2013; 7 (3): 293–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

An Australian Postgraduate Award and a Mater Research Institute top-up scholarship to MM supported this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia,

    M L McLanders & P M Sanderson

  2. Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

    S D Marshall

  3. School of Information Technology and Electrical Engineering (ITEE), The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

    P M Sanderson

  4. School of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia,

    P M Sanderson & H G Liley

  5. Mater Research Institute, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, QLD, Australia,

    H G Liley

Authors
  1. M L McLanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S D Marshall
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P M Sanderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. H G Liley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M L McLanders.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

HL wishes to declare co-authorship of both the ILCOR and ANZCOR algorithms. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McLanders, M., Marshall, S., Sanderson, P. et al. The cognitive aids in medicine assessment tool (CMAT) applied to five neonatal resuscitation algorithms. J Perinatol 37, 387–393 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.235

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2016.235

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links