Literature DB >> 19709794

Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills.

Nicholas Castle1, Robert Owen, Mark Hann, Simon Clark, David Reeves, Ian Gurney.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Following CBRN incidents health care professionals will be required to care for critically ill patients within the warm zone, prior to decontamination, whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. The loss of fine-motor skills may adversely affect delivery of medical care.
METHODS: 64 clinicians were recruited to perform, intubation, LMA placement, insertion of an IV cannula and IO needle whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. A fractional factorial design was employed, in which each of the 64 clinicians had two attempts at performing each skill whilst wearing CBRN-PPE and once unsuited according to a pre-specified sequence. ANALYSIS: The unsuited and suit data were analysed independently with the primary outcome being time taken to complete each skill whilst suited. Analysis was undertaken using STATA (V9.2).
RESULTS: Mean times differ considerably by skill (p<0.001). Overall, times to completion on attempt 2 were shorter than attempt 1 (p=0.045), though the reduction in time differed significantly by skill (p=0.004). LMA placement was on average completed nearly 45 s faster than intubation, and IO cannulation was nearly 90 s faster than IV cannulation. Whilst suited, 8% of intubation and 12% of intra-venous cannulation attempts were unsuccessful. Previous familiarity with CBRN-PPE did not improve performance (p=0.23). Professional groups differed significantly (p=0.009) with anaesthetists performing all skills faster than the other clinicians.
CONCLUSION: This study supports the concept of instigating airway and vascular access skills whilst wearing CBRN-PPE but challenges the sole reliance on 'high-dexterity skills'. Intubation is feasible but must be considered within the context of the incident as the LMA may offer a viable alternative. Intra-venous access prior to casualty decontamination is arguably a pointless skill and should be replaced with IO access.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19709794     DOI: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2009.08.001

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Resuscitation        ISSN: 0300-9572            Impact factor:   5.262


  13 in total

Review 1.  Clinical update on COVID-19 for the emergency clinician: Cardiac arrest in the out-of-hospital and in-hospital settings.

Authors:  William J Brady; Summer Chavez; Michael Gottlieb; Stephen Y Liang; Brandon Carius; Alex Koyfman; Brit Long
Journal:  Am J Emerg Med       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 4.093

2.  Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

Authors:  Jos H Verbeek; Blair Rajamaki; Sharea Ijaz; Christina Tikka; Jani H Ruotsalainen; Michael B Edmond; Riitta Sauni; F Selcen Kilinc Balci
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-07-01

3.  Chest Compression With Personal Protective Equipment During Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation: A Randomized Crossover Simulation Study.

Authors:  Jie Chen; Kai-Zhi Lu; Bin Yi; Yan Chen
Journal:  Medicine (Baltimore)       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 1.889

4.  Maintenance of Skill Proficiency for Emergency Skills With and Without Adjuncts Despite the Use of Level C Personal Protective Equipment.

Authors:  Harsh Sule; Miriam Kulkarni; Gregory Sugalski; Tiffany Murano
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2020-03-27

5.  Which intravascular access should we use in patients with suspected/confirmed COVID-19?

Authors:  Jacek Smereka; Lukasz Szarpak; Krzysztof J Filipiak; Milosz Jaguszewski; Jerzy R Ladny
Journal:  Resuscitation       Date:  2020-04-15       Impact factor: 5.262

6.  Does wearing personal protective equipment affect the performance and decision of physicians? A cross-sectional study during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Mohammed S Foula; Fayrouz A Nwesar; Esraa H Oraby; Ahmed Foula; Mosab A Alarfaj; Hassan S Foula; Noha E Mohamed
Journal:  Ann Med Surg (Lond)       Date:  2021-06-10

7.  Emergency department impaired adherence to personal protective equipment donning and doffing protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Authors:  Tomer Lamhoot; Noa Ben Shoshan; Hagit Eisenberg; Gilad Fainberg; Mansour Mhiliya; Neta Cohen; Orly Bisker-Kassif; Orly Barak; Carolyn Weiniger; Tali Capua
Journal:  Isr J Health Policy Res       Date:  2021-07-19

8.  Personal protective equipment for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff.

Authors:  Jos H Verbeek; Blair Rajamaki; Sharea Ijaz; Riitta Sauni; Elaine Toomey; Bronagh Blackwood; Christina Tikka; Jani H Ruotsalainen; F Selcen Kilinc Balci
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2020-04-15

9.  Comparison of Miller and Airtraq laryngoscopes for orotracheal intubation by physicians wearing CBRN protective equipment during infant resuscitation: a randomized crossover simulation study.

Authors:  Pierre-Géraud Claret; Renaud Asencio; Damien Rogier; Claire Roger; Philippe Fournier; Tu-Anh Tran; Mustapha Sebbane; Xavier Bobbia; Jean Emmanuel de La Coussaye
Journal:  Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med       Date:  2016-03-22       Impact factor: 2.953

10.  Limiting factors for wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in a health care environment evaluated in a randomised study.

Authors:  Martina Loibner; Sandra Hagauer; Gerold Schwantzer; Andrea Berghold; Kurt Zatloukal
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-01-22       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.