Literature DB >> 21215555

Adoption of video laryngoscopy in Massachusetts emergency departments.

Ali S Raja1, Ashley F Sullivan, Daniel J Pallin, J Stephen Bohan, Carlos A Camargo.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Previous research suggests that video laryngoscopy may be superior to direct laryngoscopy.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the proportion of Massachusetts emergency departments (EDs) that have adopted video laryngoscopy, the characteristics of user and non-user EDs, the reasons why non-users do not use video laryngoscopy, and how the adoption of video laryngoscopy compares to typical technology adoption life cycles.
METHODS: Surveys were mailed to directors of all non-federal EDs in Massachusetts (n=74) in early 2009. Non-responders received repeat mailings and were then contacted via telephone or e-mail.
RESULTS: Sixty-three of 74 (85%) EDs responded and 43% had adopted video laryngoscopy. EDs with video laryngoscopy had a higher median annual visit volume than EDs without video laryngoscopy (48,000 vs. 36,500, p=0.04), but had similar mean intubations per week (4.5 vs. 4.4, p=0.97) and mean surgical airways per year (0.7 vs. 1.1, p=0.19). Half of the EDs affiliated with emergency medicine residency programs had video laryngoscopy available. Among EDs with video laryngoscopy, the technology had been available for>5 years in 4% (1/27), 1-5 years in 44% (12/27), and<1 year in 52% (14/27). Although EDs not using video laryngoscopy did not do so primarily because it was too expensive (69% [25/36]), video laryngoscopy adoption has still progressed more rapidly than predicted by the typical technology adoption timeline.
CONCLUSION: Video laryngoscopy has been adopted by 43% of Massachusetts EDs; results were similar in academic institutions. Cost is the primary barrier to adoption for non-user EDs, but adoption is progressing more rapidly than expected for a new technology.
Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21215555     DOI: 10.1016/j.jemermed.2010.10.020

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Emerg Med        ISSN: 0736-4679            Impact factor:   1.484


  3 in total

1.  Trend and Outcomes of Video Laryngoscope Use Across PICUs.

Authors:  Jocelyn R Grunwell; Pradip P Kamat; Michael Miksa; Ashwin Krishna; Karen Walson; Dennis Simon; Conrad Krawiec; Ryan Breuer; Jan Hau Lee; Eleanor Gradidge; Keiko Tarquinio; Asha Shenoi; Justine Shults; Vinay Nadkarni; Akira Nishisaki
Journal:  Pediatr Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 3.624

2.  A comparison of the C-MAC video laryngoscope to the Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation in the emergency department.

Authors:  John C Sakles; Jarrod Mosier; Stephen Chiu; Mari Cosentino; Leah Kalin
Journal:  Ann Emerg Med       Date:  2012-05-05       Impact factor: 5.721

3.  Differences in the diagnostic value between fiberoptic and high definition laryngoscopy for the characterisation of pharyngeal and laryngeal lesions: A multi-observer paired analysis of videos.

Authors:  Constanze Scholman; Jeroen M Westra; Manon A Zwakenberg; Frederik G Dikkers; Gyorgy B Halmos; Jan Wedman; Jan E Wachters; Bernard F A M van der Laan; Boudewijn E C Plaat
Journal:  Clin Otolaryngol       Date:  2019-12-06       Impact factor: 2.597

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.