确认气管插管的双人口头检查:评估防止未识别食道插管的实践变化。

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Thomas Cloke , Catherine Ross , Paula Joy , Anthony Carver , Thomas E. Potter , Dani Padman , Kate Kanga , Imran Ahmad , Kariem El-Boghdadly , Fiona E. Kelly , Timothy M. Cook
{"title":"确认气管插管的双人口头检查:评估防止未识别食道插管的实践变化。","authors":"Thomas Cloke ,&nbsp;Catherine Ross ,&nbsp;Paula Joy ,&nbsp;Anthony Carver ,&nbsp;Thomas E. Potter ,&nbsp;Dani Padman ,&nbsp;Kate Kanga ,&nbsp;Imran Ahmad ,&nbsp;Kariem El-Boghdadly ,&nbsp;Fiona E. Kelly ,&nbsp;Timothy M. Cook","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Deaths from unrecognised oesophageal intubation continue despite national campaigns emphasising the importance of capnography to confirm tracheal intubation. A two-person verbal intubation check is recommended in consensus guidelines intended to prevent such deaths. This check can be performed by the intubator with their assistant, either as a one-step process (identification of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide) or as a two-step process (adding identification of the tracheal tube passing through the vocal cords during videolaryngoscopy).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In two hospitals we introduced two-person checking of tracheal intubation. In one hospital this involved the one-step process and in the other the two-step process. We used anonymous online questionnaires before, during, and after these changes to collect opinions from anaesthetists and their assistants regarding the feasibility and acceptability of these changes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Most intubators (116/149, 78%) and intubators' assistants (70/72, 97%) reported that the two-person verbal intubation check would reduce the likelihood of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. Benefits and lack of negative aspects were reported for both one-step and two-step two-person intubation checks in both centres. Intubators judged that the checks improved communication and teamwork (118/149, 79%); intubators' assistants reported feeling more empowered to voice concerns if needed (69/72, 96%), a flattened team hierarchy (53/72, 74%), and feeling more valued as team members (64/72, 89%). Most intubators (122/149, 82%) and intubators' assistants (68/72, 94%) planned to continue using the two-person intubation check for all future intubations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our results suggest that a two-person verbal intubation check is feasible and acceptable to all members of the intubating team.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"133 6","pages":"Pages 1307-1317"},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A two-person verbal check to confirm tracheal intubation: evaluation of practice changes to prevent unrecognised oesophageal intubation\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Cloke ,&nbsp;Catherine Ross ,&nbsp;Paula Joy ,&nbsp;Anthony Carver ,&nbsp;Thomas E. Potter ,&nbsp;Dani Padman ,&nbsp;Kate Kanga ,&nbsp;Imran Ahmad ,&nbsp;Kariem El-Boghdadly ,&nbsp;Fiona E. Kelly ,&nbsp;Timothy M. Cook\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Deaths from unrecognised oesophageal intubation continue despite national campaigns emphasising the importance of capnography to confirm tracheal intubation. A two-person verbal intubation check is recommended in consensus guidelines intended to prevent such deaths. This check can be performed by the intubator with their assistant, either as a one-step process (identification of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide) or as a two-step process (adding identification of the tracheal tube passing through the vocal cords during videolaryngoscopy).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>In two hospitals we introduced two-person checking of tracheal intubation. In one hospital this involved the one-step process and in the other the two-step process. We used anonymous online questionnaires before, during, and after these changes to collect opinions from anaesthetists and their assistants regarding the feasibility and acceptability of these changes.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Most intubators (116/149, 78%) and intubators' assistants (70/72, 97%) reported that the two-person verbal intubation check would reduce the likelihood of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. Benefits and lack of negative aspects were reported for both one-step and two-step two-person intubation checks in both centres. Intubators judged that the checks improved communication and teamwork (118/149, 79%); intubators' assistants reported feeling more empowered to voice concerns if needed (69/72, 96%), a flattened team hierarchy (53/72, 74%), and feeling more valued as team members (64/72, 89%). Most intubators (122/149, 82%) and intubators' assistants (68/72, 94%) planned to continue using the two-person intubation check for all future intubations.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Our results suggest that a two-person verbal intubation check is feasible and acceptable to all members of the intubating team.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9250,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"volume\":\"133 6\",\"pages\":\"Pages 1307-1317\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":9.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of anaesthesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224005579\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ANESTHESIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0007091224005579","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景尽管全国性的宣传活动都在强调使用气管插管造影术确认气管插管的重要性,但因未被发现的食道插管而导致的死亡仍在继续。旨在预防此类死亡的共识指南建议进行双人口头插管检查。这项检查可由插管者与其助手共同完成,可以是一步法(识别持续呼出的二氧化碳),也可以是两步法(在视频喉镜检查中增加识别气管导管通过声带的功能)。一家医院采用一步法,另一家医院采用两步法。结果大多数插管医生(116/149,78%)和插管医生助理(70/72,97%)表示,双人口头插管检查可降低未识别食道插管的可能性。两家中心都报告了一步式和两步式双人插管检查的优点和不足。插管医生认为,检查改善了沟通和团队合作(118/149,79%);插管医生的助手报告称,他们感觉自己更有能力在必要时表达自己的担忧(69/72,96%),团队的等级制度更加扁平化(53/72,74%),并感觉自己作为团队成员更受重视(64/72,89%)。大多数插管者(122/149,82%)和插管者助手(68/72,94%)计划在今后的所有插管中继续使用双人插管检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A two-person verbal check to confirm tracheal intubation: evaluation of practice changes to prevent unrecognised oesophageal intubation

Background

Deaths from unrecognised oesophageal intubation continue despite national campaigns emphasising the importance of capnography to confirm tracheal intubation. A two-person verbal intubation check is recommended in consensus guidelines intended to prevent such deaths. This check can be performed by the intubator with their assistant, either as a one-step process (identification of sustained exhaled carbon dioxide) or as a two-step process (adding identification of the tracheal tube passing through the vocal cords during videolaryngoscopy).

Methods

In two hospitals we introduced two-person checking of tracheal intubation. In one hospital this involved the one-step process and in the other the two-step process. We used anonymous online questionnaires before, during, and after these changes to collect opinions from anaesthetists and their assistants regarding the feasibility and acceptability of these changes.

Results

Most intubators (116/149, 78%) and intubators' assistants (70/72, 97%) reported that the two-person verbal intubation check would reduce the likelihood of unrecognised oesophageal intubation. Benefits and lack of negative aspects were reported for both one-step and two-step two-person intubation checks in both centres. Intubators judged that the checks improved communication and teamwork (118/149, 79%); intubators' assistants reported feeling more empowered to voice concerns if needed (69/72, 96%), a flattened team hierarchy (53/72, 74%), and feeling more valued as team members (64/72, 89%). Most intubators (122/149, 82%) and intubators' assistants (68/72, 94%) planned to continue using the two-person intubation check for all future intubations.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that a two-person verbal intubation check is feasible and acceptable to all members of the intubating team.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信