AimTo determine if data-informed debriefing, compared to a traditional debriefing, improves the process of care provided by healthcare teams during a simulated pediatric cardiac arrest.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, randomized trial. Participants were randomized to a traditional debriefing or a data-informed debriefing supported by a debriefing tool. Participant teams managed a 10-minute cardiac arrest simulation case, followed by a debriefing (i.e. traditional or data-informed), and then a second cardiac arrest case. The primary outcome was the percentage of overall excellent CPR. The secondary outcomes were compliance with AHA guidelines for depth and rate, chest compression (CC) fraction, peri-shock pause duration, and time to critical interventions.ResultsA total of 21 teams (84 participants) were enrolled, with data from 20 teams (80 participants) analyzed. The data-informed debriefing group was significantly better in percentage of overall excellent CPR (control vs intervention: 53.8% vs 78.7%; MD 24.9%, 95%CI: 5.4 to 44.4%,p= 0.02), guideline-compliant depth (control vs. intervention: 60.4% vs 85.8%, MD 25.4%, 95%CI: 5.5 to 45.3%,p= 0.02), CC fraction (control vs intervention: 88.6% vs 92.6, MD 4.0%, 95%CI: 0.5 to 7.4%,p= 0.03), and peri-shock pause duration (control vs intervention: 5.8 s vs 3.7 s, MD −2.1 s, 95%CI: −3.5 to −0.8 s,p= 0.004) compared to the control group. There was no significant difference in time to critical interventions between groups.ConclusionWhen compared with traditional debriefing, data-informed debriefing improves CPR quality and reduces pauses in CPR during simulated cardiac arrest, with no improvement in time to critical interventions.