Intubation success in prehospital emergency anaesthesia: a retrospective observational analysis of the Inter-Changeable Operator Model (ICOM).

James Price, Kate Lachowycz, Alistair Steel, Lyle Moncur, Rob Major, Ed B G Barnard
{"title":"Intubation success in prehospital emergency anaesthesia: a retrospective observational analysis of the Inter-Changeable Operator Model (ICOM).","authors":"James Price,&nbsp;Kate Lachowycz,&nbsp;Alistair Steel,&nbsp;Lyle Moncur,&nbsp;Rob Major,&nbsp;Ed B G Barnard","doi":"10.1186/s13049-022-01032-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pre hospital emergency anaesthesia (PHEA) is a complex procedure with significant risks. First-pass intubation success (FPS) is recommended as a quality indicator in pre hospital advanced airway management. Previous data demonstrating significantly lower FPS by non-physicians does not distinguish between non-physicians operating in isolation or within physician teams. In several UK HEMS, the role of the intubating provider is interchangeable between the physician and critical care paramedic-termed the Inter-Changeable Operator Model (ICOM). The objectives of this study were to compare first-pass intubation success rate between physicians and critical care paramedics (CCP) in a large regional, multi-organisational dataset of trauma PHEA patients, and to report the application of the ICOM.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A retrospective observational study of consecutive trauma patients ≥ 16 years old who underwent PHEA at two different ICOM Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in the East of England, 2015-2020. Data are presented as number (percentage) and median [inter-quartile range]. Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions, reported as odds ratio (OR (95% confidence interval, 95% CI)), p value. The study design complied with the STROBE (Strengthening The Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the study period, 13,654 patients were attended. 674 (4.9%) trauma patients ≥ 16 years old who underwent PHEA were included in the final analysis: the median age was 44 [28-63] years old, and 502 (74.5%) were male. There was no significant difference in the FPS rate between physicians and CCPs-90.2% and 87.4% respectively, OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.7-2.5), p = 0.38. The cumulative first, second, third, and fourth-pass intubation success rates were 89.6%, 98.7%, 99.7%, and 100%. Patients who had a physician-operated initial intubation attempt weighed more and had a higher heart rate, compared to those who had a CCP-operated initial attempt.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In an ICOM setting, we demonstrated 100% intubation success in adult trauma patients undergoing PHEA. There was no significant difference in first-pass intubation success between physicians and CCPs.</p>","PeriodicalId":501057,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"44"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9264686/pdf/","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-022-01032-2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background: Pre hospital emergency anaesthesia (PHEA) is a complex procedure with significant risks. First-pass intubation success (FPS) is recommended as a quality indicator in pre hospital advanced airway management. Previous data demonstrating significantly lower FPS by non-physicians does not distinguish between non-physicians operating in isolation or within physician teams. In several UK HEMS, the role of the intubating provider is interchangeable between the physician and critical care paramedic-termed the Inter-Changeable Operator Model (ICOM). The objectives of this study were to compare first-pass intubation success rate between physicians and critical care paramedics (CCP) in a large regional, multi-organisational dataset of trauma PHEA patients, and to report the application of the ICOM.

Methods: A retrospective observational study of consecutive trauma patients ≥ 16 years old who underwent PHEA at two different ICOM Helicopter Emergency Medical Services in the East of England, 2015-2020. Data are presented as number (percentage) and median [inter-quartile range]. Fisher's exact test was used to compare proportions, reported as odds ratio (OR (95% confidence interval, 95% CI)), p value. The study design complied with the STROBE (Strengthening The Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology) reporting guidelines.

Results: In the study period, 13,654 patients were attended. 674 (4.9%) trauma patients ≥ 16 years old who underwent PHEA were included in the final analysis: the median age was 44 [28-63] years old, and 502 (74.5%) were male. There was no significant difference in the FPS rate between physicians and CCPs-90.2% and 87.4% respectively, OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.7-2.5), p = 0.38. The cumulative first, second, third, and fourth-pass intubation success rates were 89.6%, 98.7%, 99.7%, and 100%. Patients who had a physician-operated initial intubation attempt weighed more and had a higher heart rate, compared to those who had a CCP-operated initial attempt.

Conclusion: In an ICOM setting, we demonstrated 100% intubation success in adult trauma patients undergoing PHEA. There was no significant difference in first-pass intubation success between physicians and CCPs.

Abstract Image

院前急救麻醉插管成功率:可互换操作员模型(ICOM)的回顾性观察分析
背景:院前急诊麻醉(PHEA)是一个复杂的过程,具有显著的风险。首次插管成功率(FPS)被推荐作为院前先进气道管理的质量指标。先前的数据表明,非医生的FPS明显较低,并没有区分非医生单独操作或在医生团队中操作。在一些英国HEMS中,插管提供者的角色在医生和重症护理护理人员之间是可互换的,称为可互换操作员模型(ICOM)。本研究的目的是在一个大型区域性、多组织的创伤PHEA患者数据集中比较医生和重症护理人员(CCP)的首次插管成功率,并报告ICOM的应用情况。方法:对2015-2020年在英格兰东部两个不同的ICOM直升机紧急医疗服务中心接受PHEA的连续16岁以上创伤患者进行回顾性观察研究。数据以数字(百分比)和中位数(四分位数间距)表示。使用Fisher精确检验比较比例,报告为优势比(OR(95%置信区间,95% CI)), p值。研究设计遵循STROBE(加强流行病学观察性研究报告)报告指南。结果:在研究期间,13654例患者接受了治疗。最终分析674例(4.9%)≥16岁的创伤患者行PHEA,中位年龄44岁[28-63],男性502例(74.5%)。医生和ccps之间的FPS率无显著差异,分别为90.2%和87.4%,OR为1.3 (95% CI 0.7-2.5), p = 0.38。累计插管一、二、三、四次成功率分别为89.6%、98.7%、99.7%、100%。与首次尝试使用ccp操作的患者相比,接受医生操作的首次插管尝试的患者体重更重,心率更高。结论:在ICOM环境下,我们证明了成人创伤患者接受PHEA的插管成功率为100%。首次插管成功率在内科医生和CCPs之间没有显著差异。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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