CClinicalTrials.gg
Not yet recruitingNCT06473090Updated Jun 25, 2024

Comparison of Using a Video vs. a Text to Improve Secure Communication During a Crisis in Anesthesia

An interventional study of Video group and Text group in Simulation, Education and Communication, sponsored by Université Paris-Sud. Not yet recruiting. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2024-06-25.

Sponsored by Université Paris-Sud · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other

From the registry’s dates

  • Primary completion was expected by Jul 2025, 1 year 3 months ago, but the record still lists the study as not yet recruiting.
Phase
Not applicable
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
80
Allocation
Randomized
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

Poor team communication in the OR is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality. Thus, experts recommend that the healthcare team in a crisis situation use secure and standardized communication to improve the quality and safety of care. Secure and standardized communication involves clear, concise, and unambiguous language. Methods of secure communication include closed-loop communication (CLC), precise and complete communication (direct, full dosage), and the use of the SBAR tool. To improve healthcare professionals' communication, it is essential to use effective educational tools. Traditionally, lectures or reading articles were the standard methods. The use of video as a tool for knowledge and skills transfer seems promising. The objective is to compare the learning of secure communication in crisis situations in anesthesia after using two different educational supports: a text versus an educational video.

A prospective, multicenter, controlled, and randomized study will be conducted during high-fidelity simulation sessions in anesthesia, comparing a group using a text-type educational support versus a group using an educational video. It will take place in simulation centers. Voluntary participants will be anesthesia and critical care residents and/or nurse anesthetists who have used one of the educational supports and then actively participated in the simulation scenarios. After their consent, participants will be randomized into two groups:

  • Text group: Participants will read a text-type educational support for 15 minutes at the beginning of the session before their involvement in 2 high-fidelity crisis simulation scenarios.
  • Video group: Participants will watch a 15-minute educational video at the beginning of the session before their involvement in the 2 high-fidelity simulation scenarios.

The primary endpoint will be to compare the total number of correct secure communication events during the crisis between the 2 groups, which includes: a) Number of correctly performed SBAR b) Number of correctly or partially performed closed-loop communications (CLC) c) Number of directive verbal orders d) Number of correct medication dosages. This evaluation will be based on video recordings of the 2 scenarios assessed by 2 independent, blinded experts (external evaluation of a team's secure communication skills (Kirkpatrick level 2). This composite score is based on various secure communication methods described in the literature and recommended by experts. The number of verbal orders per scenario will also be recorded.

The secondary endpoint will be to evaluate each item independently, the proportion of CLC per verbal order, satisfaction with the educational tool (Kirkpatrick level 1), and the perception of learning in terms of secure communication (1 to 10 Likert scale, Kirkpatrick level 2). Participants' characteristics will also be collected.

Read the detailed description

Introduction Effective resolution of a crisis situation in anesthesia and critical care requires both technical and non-technical skills (1). Non-technical skills (NTS) include leadership, task distribution, teamwork, and communication. Moreover, communication issues are common in the operating room (2). Poor team communication in the OR is associated with increased postoperative morbidity and mortality (3). Thus, experts recommend that the healthcare team in a crisis situation use secure and standardized communication to improve the quality and safety of care (to reduce morbidity and mortality and limit the incidence of adverse events) (1). Secure and standardized communication involves clear, concise, and unambiguous language. Methods of secure communication include closed-loop communication (CLC), precise and complete communication (direct, full dosage), and the use of the SBAR tool (1).

To improve healthcare professionals' communication, it is essential to use effective educational tools. Traditionally, lectures or reading articles were the standard methods. More recently, simulation has shown its value in acquiring these skills (1)(4). However, given the large number of professionals and the limited number of trainers, other educational tools must be developed to allow training for as many professionals as possible.

The use of video as a tool for knowledge and skills transfer seems promising. Nowadays, many teenagers and adults regularly watch videos on digital platforms. Animated images offer many advantages over text. Research in psychology shows that 93% of human communication is non-verbal (5). Additionally, the human brain deciphers different elements of an image simultaneously, whereas spoken or written language is decoded linearly and sequentially, which takes more time (5). Consequently, the use of images for knowledge transfer would be particularly relevant as learning is more effective when visual, oral, or written information is provided simultaneously rather than sequentially (5). In the healthcare field, using images related to written or spoken text has proven particularly effective for knowledge transmission (6). Illustrated text allows participants to develop more complex cognitive structures than those who do not benefit from images (7).

Objective: The objective of this study is to compare the learning of secure communication in crisis situations in anesthesia after using two different educational supports: a text versus an educational video.

Materials and Methods A prospective, multicenter, controlled, and randomized study will be conducted during high-fidelity simulation sessions in anesthesia, comparing a group using a text-type educational support versus a group using an educational video. It will take place in simulation centers. Voluntary participants will be anesthesia residents and/or nurse anesthetists who have used one of the educational supports and then actively participated in the simulation scenarios.

After their consent, participants will be randomized into two groups:

  • Text group: Participants will read a text-type educational support for 15 minutes at the beginning of the session before their involvement in 2 high-fidelity crisis simulation scenarios.
  • Video group: Participants will watch a 15-minute educational video at the beginning of the session before their involvement in the 2 high-fidelity simulation scenarios.

The educational video used was developed by experts (in Human Factors and Obstetric Anesthesia) and validated by SFAR and CARO. It depicts poor use of NTS (including CLC) during a maternal cardiac arrest anesthesia scenario and then proper use of NTS during the same scenario. The text-type educational support, written in French by the same team of experts, covers all the NTS mentioned in the video and has already been used in a previous study (1)(5).

The 2 high-fidelity simulation scenarios will be crisis scenarios in anesthesia promoting verbal orders and communication (including cardiac arrest, malignant hyperthermia...). They will serve as the evaluation basis. Each scenario will involve 2 to 3 learner participants (residents and/or nurse anesthetists). The first scenario will be followed by a debriefing focusing on technical skills, and the second scenario will be followed by a debriefing focusing on both technical and non-technical skills.

The primary endpoint will be to compare the total number of correct secure communication events during the crisis between the 2 groups, which includes: a) Number of correctly performed SBAR (1 correct event = 1 point) b) Number of correctly or partially performed closed-loop communications (CLC) (1 correct event = 1 point, partial = ½ point) c) Number of directive verbal orders (using a name or the pronoun "you") (1 correct event = 1 point) d) Number of correct medication dosages (medication with route of administration and dosage) (1 correct event = 1 point) This evaluation will be based on video recordings of the 2 scenarios assessed by 2 independent, blinded experts. This composite score is based on various secure communication methods described in the literature and recommended by experts (1). It corresponds to an external evaluation of a team's secure communication skills (Kirkpatrick level 2). The number of verbal orders per scenario will also be counted by the 2 experts. A correct closed-loop communication is defined as completing the following 3 steps: 1° the sender formulates the order / 2° the receiver acknowledges receipt of the message / 3° the sender closes the loop by verifying the message is correctly received. The verbal order is only the first step when the sender formulates the order aloud.

The secondary endpoint will be to evaluate each item independently, the proportion of CLC per verbal order, satisfaction with the educational tool (Kirkpatrick level 1), and the perception of learning in terms of secure communication (rated between 1 to 10 on a Likert scale, Kirkpatrick level 2). Participants' characteristics will also be collected via an online questionnaire right after the session.

02

Conditions studied

  • Simulation
  • Education
  • Communication

Keywords

  • Communication
  • education
  • simulation
  • anesthesia
  • video
03

In context

Lead sponsor

Université Paris-Sud is the lead sponsor of 10 studies on the registry; 3 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Inclusion criteria

  • anesthesia residents and/or nurse anesthetists who have used one of the educational supports and then actively participated in the simulation scenarios.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • technical problem video
  • declines active participation in the session
05

Study design

Phase
Not applicable
Primary purpose
Other
Allocation
Randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
Single (Outcomes assessor)
Enrollment
80 participants (estimated)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    Video group

    Participants will watch a 15-minute educational video at the beginning of the session before their involvement in the 2 high-fidelity simulation scenarios. The educational video used was developed by experts (in Human Factors and Obstetric Anesthesia) and validated by SFAR and CARO. It depicts poor use of NTS (including CLC) during a maternal cardiac arrest anesthesia scenario and then proper use of NTS during the same scenario.

    Other: Video group

  • Active comparator
    Text group

    Participants will read a text-type educational support for 15 minutes at the beginning of the session before their involvement in 2 high-fidelity crisis simulation scenarios. The text-type educational support, written in French by the same team of experts, covers all the NTS mentioned in the video and has already been used in a previous study

    Other: Text group

Interventions

  • OtherVideo group

    Participants will watch a 15-minute educational video at the beginning of the session before their involvement in the 2 high-fidelity simulation scenarios. The educational video used was developed by experts (in Human Factors and Obstetric Anesthesia) and validated by SFAR and CARO. It depicts poor use of NTS (including CLC) during a maternal cardiac arrest anesthesia scenario and then proper use of NTS during the same scenario.

  • OtherText group

    Participants will read a text-type educational support for 15 minutes at the beginning of the session before their involvement in 2 high-fidelity crisis simulation scenarios. The text-type educational support, written in French by the same team of experts, covers all the NTS mentioned in the video and has already been used in a previous study

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. communication events

    The primary endpoint will be to compare the total number of correct secure communication events during the crisis between the 2 groups, which includes: a) Number of correctly performed SBAR (1 correct event = 1 point) b) Number of correctly or partially performed closed-loop communications (CLC) (1 correct event = 1 point, partial = ½ point) c) Number of directive verbal orders (using a name or the pronoun "you") (1 correct event = 1 point) d) Number of correct medication dosages (medication with route of administration and dosage) (1 correct event = 1 point). This evaluation will be based on video recordings of the 2 scenarios assessed by 2 independent, blinded experts. This composite score is based on various secure communication methods described in the literature and recommended by experts (1). It corresponds to an external evaluation of a team's secure communication skills (Kirkpatrick level 2).

    Time frame: 30 minutes by video after the end of the session by an external evaluator

Secondary outcomes

  1. Satisfaction

    to evaluate satisfaction with the educational tool ((rated between 1 to 10 on a Likert scale, Kirkpatrick level 1)

    Time frame: 1 minute and the end of the session by all residents

  2. perception of learning

    the perception of learning in terms of secure communication (rated between 1 to 10 on a Likert scale, Kirkpatrick level 2).

    Time frame: 1 minute and the end of the session by all residents

  3. Closed-loop-communication

    to evaluate the proportion of Closed loop communication per verbal order.

    Time frame: 30 minutes by video after the end of the session by an external evaluator

  4. SBAR (situation, background, assessment, recommandation) tool

    to evaluate Number of correctly performed SBAR tool (1 correct event = 1 point)

    Time frame: 30 minutes by video after the end of the session by an external evaluator

  5. closed-loop communication

    to evaluate Number of correctly or partially performed closed-loop communications ( correct event = 1 point, partial = ½ point)

    Time frame: 30 minutes by video after the end of the session by an external evaluator

  6. verbal orders

    to evaluate Number of directive verbal orders (using a name or the pronoun "you") (1 correct event = 1 point)

    Time frame: 30 minutes by video after the end of the session by an external evaluator

  7. medication dosages

    d) Number of correct medication dosages (medication with route of administration and dosage) (1 correct event = 1 point).

    Time frame: 30 minutes by video after the end of the session by an external evaluator

07

Study locations

No study locations are listed for this record.

08

References and documents

Individual participant data

Plan to share: No

No publications or documents are linked to this record.

09

Updates

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jun 25, 2024, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT06473090
Lead sponsor
Université Paris-Sud
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Jun 25, 2024
Start date
Jun 26, 2024 (estimated)
Primary completion
Jul 1, 2025 (estimated)
Completion
Aug 1, 2025 (estimated)
Last update
Jun 25, 2024

Study contacts

Antonia Blanié, MD PhD
Contact
antonia.blanie@aphp.fr
33 145 21 34 47
Fabien Marquion
Contact
fmarquion@ch-versailles.fr
Antonia Blanié, MD PhD
principal investigator · Université Paris-Saclay

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is not yet recruiting, as verified in Jun 2024. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion