Prehospital Endotracheal Intubation Success Rates for Critical Care Nurses Versus Paramedics.

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q2 EMERGENCY MEDICINE Prehospital Emergency Care Pub Date : 2025-01-23 DOI:10.1080/10903127.2024.2448246
Nicholas H George, Jacob B Cihla, Francis X Guyette, Sriram Ramgopal, Christian Martin-Gill
{"title":"Prehospital Endotracheal Intubation Success Rates for Critical Care Nurses Versus Paramedics.","authors":"Nicholas H George, Jacob B Cihla, Francis X Guyette, Sriram Ramgopal, Christian Martin-Gill","doi":"10.1080/10903127.2024.2448246","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Prehospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a lifesaving procedure with known complications. To reduce ETI-associated morbidity and mortality, organizations prioritize first-pass success (FPS). However, there are few data evaluating the association of FPS with clinician licensure.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a retrospective chart review of all paramedic and nurse ETI attempts by a multi-state air and ground critical care transport service between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2023. Our outcomes of interest were FPS and last-pass success (LPS). The exposure of interest was clinician license. We performed a multivariable logistic regression controlling for multiple common patient/operational confounders: age, sex, referring/procedure location, medical category, year, paralytic use, and proceduralist experience. As an exploratory analysis we assessed FPS by licensure and years of experience using time since first patient mission as a surrogate (<1 year, 1 to <2 years, 2 to <3 years, and 3+ years).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 171,804 encounters over the study period, 8,307 (4.8%) required ETI. Included encounters were mostly adult (≥18 years old; 91.0%), male (64.0%), and victims of trauma (57.4%). Most intubations were performed on primary retrieval (scene) missions (70.5%) with neuromuscular blockade (93.3%). Nurses and paramedics intubated with similar success on the first (88.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 87.9-89.8 vs. 89.7%; 95% CI 88.7-90.7) and last (97.4%; 95% CI 96.9-97.9 vs. 97.3%; 95% CI 96.7-97.8) attempts. Multivariable analysis revealed no significant difference between two groups for FPS (aOR 0.90; 95% CI 0.77-1.04]) or LPS (aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.76-1.32). FPS was also similar for nurses (74.7%; 95% CI 69.8-79.7) and paramedics (80.6%; 95% CI 75.6-85.6) within the first year, and after 3 years of experience (91.6%; 95% CI 90.6-92.5 vs. 91.5%; 95% CI 90.5-92.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Critical care paramedics and nurses perform ETI with similar proficiency. In this analysis of 7,812 intubations, clinician licensure was not associated with FPS nor LPS after controlling for multiple common confounders. Further research evaluating training schemes especially in early years of experience is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":20336,"journal":{"name":"Prehospital Emergency Care","volume":" ","pages":"1-7"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prehospital Emergency Care","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10903127.2024.2448246","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EMERGENCY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Prehospital endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a lifesaving procedure with known complications. To reduce ETI-associated morbidity and mortality, organizations prioritize first-pass success (FPS). However, there are few data evaluating the association of FPS with clinician licensure.

Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of all paramedic and nurse ETI attempts by a multi-state air and ground critical care transport service between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2023. Our outcomes of interest were FPS and last-pass success (LPS). The exposure of interest was clinician license. We performed a multivariable logistic regression controlling for multiple common patient/operational confounders: age, sex, referring/procedure location, medical category, year, paralytic use, and proceduralist experience. As an exploratory analysis we assessed FPS by licensure and years of experience using time since first patient mission as a surrogate (<1 year, 1 to <2 years, 2 to <3 years, and 3+ years).

Results: Of 171,804 encounters over the study period, 8,307 (4.8%) required ETI. Included encounters were mostly adult (≥18 years old; 91.0%), male (64.0%), and victims of trauma (57.4%). Most intubations were performed on primary retrieval (scene) missions (70.5%) with neuromuscular blockade (93.3%). Nurses and paramedics intubated with similar success on the first (88.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 87.9-89.8 vs. 89.7%; 95% CI 88.7-90.7) and last (97.4%; 95% CI 96.9-97.9 vs. 97.3%; 95% CI 96.7-97.8) attempts. Multivariable analysis revealed no significant difference between two groups for FPS (aOR 0.90; 95% CI 0.77-1.04]) or LPS (aOR 1.00; 95% CI 0.76-1.32). FPS was also similar for nurses (74.7%; 95% CI 69.8-79.7) and paramedics (80.6%; 95% CI 75.6-85.6) within the first year, and after 3 years of experience (91.6%; 95% CI 90.6-92.5 vs. 91.5%; 95% CI 90.5-92.6).

Conclusions: Critical care paramedics and nurses perform ETI with similar proficiency. In this analysis of 7,812 intubations, clinician licensure was not associated with FPS nor LPS after controlling for multiple common confounders. Further research evaluating training schemes especially in early years of experience is needed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
重症护理护士与护理人员院前气管插管成功率的比较。
目的:院前气管插管(ETI)是一种已知并发症的救生手术。为了减少外伤性脑炎相关的发病率和死亡率,组织优先考虑首次通过成功(FPS)。然而,很少有数据评估FPS与临床医生执照的关系。方法:我们对2008年1月1日至2023年12月31日期间多州空中和地面重症监护运输服务的所有护理人员和护士ETI尝试进行回顾性图表回顾。我们感兴趣的结果是FPS和last-pass success (LPS)。兴趣的暴露是临床医师执照。我们进行了多变量逻辑回归,控制了多个常见的患者/手术混杂因素:年龄、性别、转诊/手术地点、医疗类别、年份、麻痹使用和手术经验。作为一项探索性分析,我们通过许可证和以第一次患者任务为替代的时间来评估FPS(结果:在研究期间的171,804次接触中,8,307次(4.8%)需要ETI)。纳入的接触主要是成人(≥18岁;91.0%)、男性(64.0%)和创伤受害者(57.4%)。大多数插管是在初级检索(现场)任务(70.5%)和神经肌肉阻断(93.3%)时进行的。护士和护理人员第一次插管成功率相似(88.8%;95%置信区间[CI] 87.9-89.8 vs. 89.7%;95% CI 88.7-90.7)和last (97.4%;95% CI 96.9-97.9 vs 97.3%;95% CI 96.7-97.8)。多变量分析显示两组间FPS差异无统计学意义(aOR 0.90;95% CI 0.77-1.04])或LPS (aOR 1.00;95% ci 0.76-1.32)。护士的FPS也相似(74.7%;95% CI 69.8-79.7)和护理人员(80.6%;95% CI 75.6-85.6), 3年后(91.6%;95% CI 90.6-92.5 vs. 91.5%;95% ci 90.5-92.6)。结论:重症监护护理人员和护士执行ETI的熟练程度相似。在对7812例插管的分析中,在控制了多个常见混杂因素后,临床医生执照与FPS和LPS无关。需要进一步研究评价培训计划,特别是早期经验的培训计划。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Prehospital Emergency Care
Prehospital Emergency Care 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
137
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: Prehospital Emergency Care publishes peer-reviewed information relevant to the practice, educational advancement, and investigation of prehospital emergency care, including the following types of articles: Special Contributions - Original Articles - Education and Practice - Preliminary Reports - Case Conferences - Position Papers - Collective Reviews - Editorials - Letters to the Editor - Media Reviews.
期刊最新文献
Social Determinants of Health and Emergency Medical Services: A Scoping Review. Chest Compressions Synchronized to Native Cardiac Contractions are More Effective than Unsynchronized Compressions for Improving Coronary Perfusion Pressure in a Novel Pseudo-PEA Swine Model. Paramedic-administered fibrinolysis in older patients with prehospital ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Prehospital Whole Blood Administration Not Associated with Increased Transfusion Reactions: The Experience of a Metropolitan EMS Agency. Non-Invasive Ventilation as a Pre-Oxygenation Strategy During In-Flight Rapid Sequence Intubation: A Case Report.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1