Intubation Practices and Outcomes in Diverse Emergency Departments Within a Single Health System.

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE
Sarah Gonzalez-Bankich, Emily C Sterrett, Tim Crittenden, Brian Burrows, Joseph Borawski, Neel Kapadia, Beiyu Liu, Emily Greenwald
{"title":"Intubation Practices and Outcomes in Diverse Emergency Departments Within a Single Health System.","authors":"Sarah Gonzalez-Bankich, Emily C Sterrett, Tim Crittenden, Brian Burrows, Joseph Borawski, Neel Kapadia, Beiyu Liu, Emily Greenwald","doi":"10.5811/westjem.61961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a life-saving procedure commonly performed in emergency departments (ED). Prior research has demonstrated significant variability in ETI experience, practices, and outcomes across EDs. Health systems often include a mix of ED environments, from large academic hospitals to community-based and freestanding EDs. However, little is known about how ETI experiences and outcomes vary within a single health system. Our objective in this study was to compare first-attempt success across three EDs representing different practice environments but within one health system.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study used institutional data from 1,659 ETI events between November 2021-January 2025 to compare ETI-related outcomes across three EDs representing a spectrum of settings: an academic Level I trauma center (A); a community teaching hospital (B); and a nonteaching community site (C). Our primary outcome measure was first-attempt success. We also assessed adverse airway outcomes and ETI-related patient and procedural characteristics. Chi-square tests evaluated the association of ETI-related outcomes and hospital sites.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Annual ED volumes were approximately 82,000 (A), 64,000 (B), and 49,000 (C), with respective ETI encounters per 1,000 patients of 5, 2, and 0.4. The community teaching hospital had the highest first-attempt success rate of 90.2% (B: 331/367; 95% CI, 87.2-93.2), followed by the academic center with 84.6% (A: 1038/1227, 95% CI, 82.6-86.6), and then by the nonteaching community site with 78.5% (C: 51/65; 95% CI, 68.5-88.5) (P = .01). Adverse airway outcomes occurred in 10.5% of ETIs and did not vary significantly between sites (A: 139/1,227 [11.3%]; B: 29/367 [7.9%]; C: 6/65 [9.2%], P = .16). The most common indication was airway protection, followed by altered mental status and cardiopulmonary arrest for all three sites. Trainees performed the majority of ETIs at hospital A (1,096/1,227; 89.3%), while attending physicians predominated at B (295/367; 80.4%) and C (64/65; 98.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found significant variation in first-attempt success between the three ED sites, although overall success and adverse airway outcomes were comparable. These findings suggest that first-attempt success may be impacted by factors such as patient differences, role and training level of laryngoscopists, and inherent site-level differences such as patient volume and acuity.</p>","PeriodicalId":23682,"journal":{"name":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","volume":"27 5","pages":"1353-1363"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13660628/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Western Journal of Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.61961","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a life-saving procedure commonly performed in emergency departments (ED). Prior research has demonstrated significant variability in ETI experience, practices, and outcomes across EDs. Health systems often include a mix of ED environments, from large academic hospitals to community-based and freestanding EDs. However, little is known about how ETI experiences and outcomes vary within a single health system. Our objective in this study was to compare first-attempt success across three EDs representing different practice environments but within one health system.

Methods: This retrospective observational study used institutional data from 1,659 ETI events between November 2021-January 2025 to compare ETI-related outcomes across three EDs representing a spectrum of settings: an academic Level I trauma center (A); a community teaching hospital (B); and a nonteaching community site (C). Our primary outcome measure was first-attempt success. We also assessed adverse airway outcomes and ETI-related patient and procedural characteristics. Chi-square tests evaluated the association of ETI-related outcomes and hospital sites.

Results: Annual ED volumes were approximately 82,000 (A), 64,000 (B), and 49,000 (C), with respective ETI encounters per 1,000 patients of 5, 2, and 0.4. The community teaching hospital had the highest first-attempt success rate of 90.2% (B: 331/367; 95% CI, 87.2-93.2), followed by the academic center with 84.6% (A: 1038/1227, 95% CI, 82.6-86.6), and then by the nonteaching community site with 78.5% (C: 51/65; 95% CI, 68.5-88.5) (P = .01). Adverse airway outcomes occurred in 10.5% of ETIs and did not vary significantly between sites (A: 139/1,227 [11.3%]; B: 29/367 [7.9%]; C: 6/65 [9.2%], P = .16). The most common indication was airway protection, followed by altered mental status and cardiopulmonary arrest for all three sites. Trainees performed the majority of ETIs at hospital A (1,096/1,227; 89.3%), while attending physicians predominated at B (295/367; 80.4%) and C (64/65; 98.5%).

Conclusion: We found significant variation in first-attempt success between the three ED sites, although overall success and adverse airway outcomes were comparable. These findings suggest that first-attempt success may be impacted by factors such as patient differences, role and training level of laryngoscopists, and inherent site-level differences such as patient volume and acuity.

单一卫生系统内不同急诊科的插管实践和结果。
简介:气管插管(ETI)是在急诊科(ED)常见的一种救生手术。先前的研究表明,在不同的急诊室,ETI的经验、实践和结果存在显著差异。卫生系统通常包括多种急诊科环境,从大型学术医院到社区急诊科和独立急诊科。然而,对于ETI的经验和结果在单一卫生系统内如何变化知之甚少。我们在这项研究中的目的是比较三个急诊科的首次尝试成功率,这些急诊科代表不同的实践环境,但在一个卫生系统内。方法:这项回顾性观察性研究使用了2021年11月至2025年1月期间1,659例ETI事件的机构数据,比较了三个ed的ETI相关结果,这些ed代表了一系列的设置:学术I级创伤中心(a);社区教学医院(B);和一个非教学社区网站(C)。我们的主要结局指标是第一次尝试的成功。我们还评估了不良气道结果和与etii相关的患者和手术特征。卡方检验评估了etii相关结果与医院地点的关系。结果:年ED量约为82,000 (A), 64,000 (B)和49,000 (C),每1,000名患者的ETI遭遇分别为5,2和0.4。社区教学医院的首次尝试成功率最高,为90.2% (B: 331/367; 95% CI, 87.2 ~ 93.2),其次是学术中心,为84.6% (A: 1038/1227, 95% CI, 82.6 ~ 86.6),其次是非教学社区站点,为78.5% (C: 51/65; 95% CI, 68.5 ~ 88.5) (P = 0.01)。气道不良结局发生率为10.5%,不同部位间无显著差异(A: 139/1,227 [11.3%]; B: 29/367 [7.9%]; C: 6/65 [9.2%], P = 0.16)。最常见的适应症是气道保护,其次是三个部位的精神状态改变和心肺骤停。实习医生在A医院(1,096/1,227;89.3%)执行了大部分eti,而主治医生在B医院(295/367;80.4%)和C医院(64/65;98.5%)占主导地位。结论:我们发现三个ED部位的首次尝试成功率存在显著差异,尽管总体成功率和气道不良结果具有可比性。这些发现表明,首次尝试的成功可能受到患者差异、喉镜医师的角色和培训水平以及患者体积和敏锐度等固有部位水平差异等因素的影响。
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
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine
Western Journal of Emergency Medicine Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
3.20%
发文量
125
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: WestJEM focuses on how the systems and delivery of emergency care affects health, health disparities, and health outcomes in communities and populations worldwide, including the impact of social conditions on the composition of patients seeking care in emergency departments.
×
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