[Videolaryngoscopic endotracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from the perspective of paramedics : Training requirements and subjective procedural confidence-results of an anonymous cross-sectional survey].

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Julia J Grannemann, Berrin Winkler, Bernd Strickmann, Gerrit Jansen
{"title":"[Videolaryngoscopic endotracheal intubation during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest from the perspective of paramedics : Training requirements and subjective procedural confidence-results of an anonymous cross-sectional survey].","authors":"Julia J Grannemann, Berrin Winkler, Bernd Strickmann, Gerrit Jansen","doi":"10.1007/s00063-026-01469-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Videolaryngoscopic endotracheal intubation (VL<sub>ETI</sub>) was implemented as a structured training module for paramedics as part of an annual continuing education program in a German EMS system. The aim was not to evaluate intubation success rates, but rather to assess perceived training needs and subjective confidence in the application of the technique.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An anonymous online cross-sectional survey was conducted among participants of the 2025 training program. Only datasets from paramedics were included in the analysis. Subjective confidence in five airway management techniques was ranked using a Borda score (rank 1 = 5 points, rank 5 = 1 point).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-nine paramedics participated (62.7%). The iGel® achieved 336 of a maximum of 395 points. Macintosh-like VL<sub>ETI</sub> with stylet and with bougie each reached 256 points. Hyperangulated techniques scored considerably lower (171 and 166 points). About half of the participants reported a need for more frequent training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although VL<sub>ETI</sub> was generally well accepted, its perceived safety remained lower than that of supraglottic airway devices. These findings support structured, repeated, and quality-assured training approaches rather than an uncontrolled expansion of invasive airway techniques.</p>","PeriodicalId":49019,"journal":{"name":"Medizinische Klinik-Intensivmedizin Und Notfallmedizin","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medizinische Klinik-Intensivmedizin Und Notfallmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00063-026-01469-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Videolaryngoscopic endotracheal intubation (VLETI) was implemented as a structured training module for paramedics as part of an annual continuing education program in a German EMS system. The aim was not to evaluate intubation success rates, but rather to assess perceived training needs and subjective confidence in the application of the technique.

Methods: An anonymous online cross-sectional survey was conducted among participants of the 2025 training program. Only datasets from paramedics were included in the analysis. Subjective confidence in five airway management techniques was ranked using a Borda score (rank 1 = 5 points, rank 5 = 1 point).

Results: Seventy-nine paramedics participated (62.7%). The iGel® achieved 336 of a maximum of 395 points. Macintosh-like VLETI with stylet and with bougie each reached 256 points. Hyperangulated techniques scored considerably lower (171 and 166 points). About half of the participants reported a need for more frequent training.

Conclusions: Although VLETI was generally well accepted, its perceived safety remained lower than that of supraglottic airway devices. These findings support structured, repeated, and quality-assured training approaches rather than an uncontrolled expansion of invasive airway techniques.

[从护理人员的角度看院外心脏骤停期间的气管内插管:培训要求和主观程序信心-一项匿名横断面调查的结果]。
背景:视频喉镜气管插管(VLETI)作为护理人员的结构化培训模块实施,作为德国EMS系统年度继续教育计划的一部分。目的不是评估插管成功率,而是评估感知到的培训需求和对该技术应用的主观信心。方法:对2025培训计划的参与者进行匿名在线横断面调查。只有来自护理人员的数据集被纳入分析。采用Borda评分对五种气道管理技术的主观信心进行排名(排名1 = 5分,排名5 = 1分)。结果:79名护理人员参与,占62.7%。iGel®在最高395分中获得了336分。像麦金塔电脑一样的VLETI,带风格和带彩带,各得256分。超角度技术得分要低得多(171分和166分)。大约一半的参与者报告需要更频繁的培训。结论:虽然VLETI被普遍接受,但其感知安全性仍低于声门上气道装置。这些发现支持结构化的、重复的和有质量保证的训练方法,而不是无控制地扩展有创气道技术。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Medizinische Klinik – Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin is an internationally respected interdisciplinary journal. It is intended for physicians, nurses, respiratory and physical therapists active in intensive care and accident/emergency units, but also for internists, anesthesiologists, surgeons, neurologists, and pediatricians with special interest in intensive care medicine. Comprehensive reviews describe the most recent advances in the field of internal medicine with special focus on intensive care problems. Freely submitted original articles present important studies in this discipline and promote scientific exchange, while articles in the category Photo essay feature interesting cases and aim at optimizing diagnostic and therapeutic strategies. In the rubric journal club well-respected experts comment on outstanding international publications. Review articles under the rubric "Continuing Medical Education" present verified results of scientific research and their integration into daily practice. The rubrics "Nursing practice" and "Physical therapy" round out the information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书