Relationship Between Resuscitation Team Members' Self-Efficacy and Team Competence During In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Abstract

Objectives: Inadequate self-efficacy of resuscitation team members may impair team performance, but high self-efficacy does not guarantee competence. We evaluated the relationship between individual self-efficacy and resuscitation team competence.

Design: Secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial.

Setting: High-fidelity in situ in-hospital cardiac arrest simulations at seven hospitals in Utah.

Subjects: Multidisciplinary cardiac arrest resuscitation team members.

Interventions: None.

Measurements and main results: Resuscitation team members completed surveys evaluating resuscitation self-efficacy (confidence in resuscitation role, difficulty thinking clearly, and concerns about committing errors) after each simulation. The primary outcome was event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Secondary outcomes included other measures of resuscitation quality, advanced cardiac life support protocol adherence, and nontechnical team performance. Analyses employed the Datta-Satten rank-sum method to account for response clustering within simulation events. Of 923 participants in 76 analyzable simulations, 612 (66%) submitted complete surveys and 33 (43%) resuscitation teams achieved hands-on fraction greater than 75%. Event-level chest compression hands-on fraction greater than 75% versus less than or equal to 75% was not associated with the percentage of resuscitation team members reporting confidence in their team role (n = 213 [74%] vs. n = 251 [77%], respectively, p = 0.18), lack of difficulty thinking clearly (n = 186 [65%] vs. n = 214 [66%], p = 0.92), or lack of worry about making errors (n = 155 [54%] vs. n = 180 [55%], p = 0.41). Team members' confidence was also not associated with secondary outcomes, except that teams with confident members had better values for composite (3.55 [interquartile range, IQR 3.00-3.82] vs. 3.18 [IQR 2.57-3.64], p = 0.024) and global (8 [7-9] vs. 8 [6-8], p = 0.029) scales measuring nontechnical team performance.

Conclusions: Team members' self-efficacy was not associated with most team-level competence metrics during simulated cardiac arrest resuscitation. These data suggest that self-efficacy should have a limited role for evaluation of resuscitation training programs and for initial certification and monitoring of individual resuscitation team members' competence.

Keywords: cardiopulmonary resuscitation; code team; in-hospital cardiac arrest; quality of care; self-efficacy.