H J G M Derikx1, B M Gerritse2, R Gans3, N J M van der Meer3. 1. Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Antonius Hospital, Koekoekslaan 1, 3435 CM, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 2. Department of Cardiac Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Amphia Hospital Breda and Oosterhout, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK, Breda, The Netherlands. bgerritse@amphia.nl. 3. Department of Cardiac Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Amphia Hospital Breda and Oosterhout, Molengracht 21, 4818 CK, Breda, The Netherlands.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Intraosseous access is recommended in vitally compromised patients if an intravenous access cannot be easily obtained. Intraosseous infusion can be initiated by various healthcare providers. Currently, there are two mechanical intraosseous devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in adults and children. A comparison is made in this study of the theoretical and practical performance by anesthesiologists and registered nurses of anesthesia (RNAs) in the use of the battery-powered device (device A) versus the spring-loaded needle device (device B). This study entailed a 12-month follow-up of knowledge, skill retention, and self-efficacy measured by standardized testing. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was performed, initially comparing 15 anesthesiologists and 15 RNAs, both on using the two types of intraosseous devices. A structured lecture and skill station was given with the educational aids provided by the respective manufacturers. Individual knowledge and practical skills were tested at 0, 3, and 12 months after the initial course. RESULTS: There was no statistical significant difference in the retention of theoretical knowledge between RNAs and anesthesiologists on all testing occasions. However, the self-efficacy of the anesthesiologists is significantly higher (p < 0.01) than the self-efficacy of the RNAs for both devices, on any testing occasion. Insufficient skills were local disinfection (both groups, both devices) and attachment of the needle to the intravenous line (RNAs with both devices). In 33 % of all device B handlings, unsafe practice occurred. CONCLUSION: The use of device A is safer in handling in comparison to device B at 12 months follow-up. The hypothesis that doctors are more qualified in obtaining intraosseous access has been disproven, as anesthesiologists were as successful as RNAs. However, the low self-efficacy of RNAs in the use of intraosseous devices could diminish the chance of them actually using one.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Intraosseous access is recommended in vitally compromised patients if an intravenous access cannot be easily obtained. Intraosseous infusion can be initiated by various healthcare providers. Currently, there are two mechanical intraosseous devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in adults and children. A comparison is made in this study of the theoretical and practical performance by anesthesiologists and registered nurses of anesthesia (RNAs) in the use of the battery-powered device (device A) versus the spring-loaded needle device (device B). This study entailed a 12-month follow-up of knowledge, skill retention, and self-efficacy measured by standardized testing. METHODS: A prospective randomized trial was performed, initially comparing 15 anesthesiologists and 15 RNAs, both on using the two types of intraosseous devices. A structured lecture and skill station was given with the educational aids provided by the respective manufacturers. Individual knowledge and practical skills were tested at 0, 3, and 12 months after the initial course. RESULTS: There was no statistical significant difference in the retention of theoretical knowledge between RNAs and anesthesiologists on all testing occasions. However, the self-efficacy of the anesthesiologists is significantly higher (p < 0.01) than the self-efficacy of the RNAs for both devices, on any testing occasion. Insufficient skills were local disinfection (both groups, both devices) and attachment of the needle to the intravenous line (RNAs with both devices). In 33 % of all device B handlings, unsafe practice occurred. CONCLUSION: The use of device A is safer in handling in comparison to device B at 12 months follow-up. The hypothesis that doctors are more qualified in obtaining intraosseous access has been disproven, as anesthesiologists were as successful as RNAs. However, the low self-efficacy of RNAs in the use of intraosseous devices could diminish the chance of them actually using one.
Authors: Robert W Neumar; Charles W Otto; Mark S Link; Steven L Kronick; Michael Shuster; Clifton W Callaway; Peter J Kudenchuk; Joseph P Ornato; Bryan McNally; Scott M Silvers; Rod S Passman; Roger D White; Erik P Hess; Wanchun Tang; Daniel Davis; Elizabeth Sinz; Laurie J Morrison Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-02 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nigel McBeth Turner; Miranda P Dierselhuis; Jos M Th Draaisma; Olle Th J ten Cate Journal: Resuscitation Date: 2007-02-08 Impact factor: 5.262
Authors: Klaas A Hartholt; Esther M M van Lieshout; Wim C Thies; Peter Patka; Inger B Schipper Journal: Prehosp Emerg Care Date: 2010 Jan-Mar Impact factor: 3.077