Cross-sectional survey identifies barriers to pediatric trauma resuscitation, suggesting quality improvement strategies.
Background/Objectives: Pediatric trauma resuscitation requires rapid, coordinated interdisciplinary teamwork; however, communication and organizational challenges frequently impede effective performance. This study aimed to characterize cross-disciplinary perceptions of barriers encountered during pediatric trauma activations and to contextualize these findings within an evidence-based quality improvement framework. Methods: We conducted a single-center, cross-sectional, anonymous electronic survey at a Level II pediatric trauma center within a tertiary adult hospital. Participants included attending and resident physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists, technicians, and ancillary staff involved in pediatric trauma activations. A 22-item survey assessed leadership, audibility, closed-loop communication, role clarity, crowding, and overall coordination. Descriptive statistics summarized responses, and free-text responses were reviewed thematically. Results: Sixty-seven team members responded (attending physicians n = 12, residents n = 15, nurses n = 22, respiratory therapists/technicians n = 18). Overall, 82% reported that crowding interfered with resuscitations, while only 6% rated leaders as very effective at managing crowding. Difficulty hearing the team leader (60%) and peers (66%) was common. Roles were always defined for 16% of respondents, and consistent use of closed-loop communication was reported by 24%; 3% were unfamiliar with the concept. More than half of respondents (54%) reported excessive personnel during activations. Conclusions: Pediatric trauma team members identified crowding, poor audibility, role ambiguity, and inconsistent structured communication as barriers to effective resuscitation. These findings support targeted quality improvement strategies, including team-size management, reinforcement of closed-loop communication, checklist use, and recurring in situ simulation with structured debriefing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Davis et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: