Objective: Airway care is the cornerstone of resuscitation. In UK emergency department practice, this care is provided by anaesthetists and emergency physicians. The aim of this study was to determine current practice for rapid sequence intubation (RSI) in a sample of emergency departments in Scotland. Methods: Two year, multicentre, prospective observational study of endotracheal intubation in the emergency departments of seven Scottish urban teaching hospitals. Results: 1631 patients underwent an intubation attempt in the emergency department and 735 patients satisfied the criteria for RSI. Emergency physicians intubated 377 patients and anaesthetists intubated 355 patients. There was no difference in median age between the groups but there was a significantly greater proportion of men (73.2% versus 65.3%, p=0.024) and trauma patients (48.5% versus 37.4%, p=0.003) in the anaesthetic group. Anaesthetists had a higher initial success rate (91.8% versus 83.8%, p=0.001) and achieved more good (Cormack-Lehane Grade I and II) views at laryngoscopy (94.0% versus 89.3%, p=0.039). There was a non-significant trend to more complications in the group of patients intubated by emergency physicians (8.7% versus 12.7%, p=0.104). Emergency physicians intubated a higher proportion of patients with physiological compromise (91.8% versus 86.1%, p=0.027) and a higher proportion of patients within 15 minutes of arrival (32.6% versus 11.3%, p<0.0001). Conclusion: Anaesthetists achieve more good views at laryngoscopy with higher initial success rates during RSI. Emergency physicians perform RSI on a higher proportion of critically ill patients and a higher proportion of patients within 15 minutes of arrival. Complications may be fewer in the anaesthetists' group, but this could be related to differences in patient populations. Training issues for RSI and emergency airway care are discussed. Complication rates for both groups are in keeping with previous studies.
The optimal method of maintaining an airway and ventilating an OHCA patient has yet to be established. Prehospital tracheal intubation for OHCA is associated with significant complications and may reduce survival. The use of tracheal intubation as a routine intervention should be reconsidered. Ambulance services should consider adopting alternative strategies in airway management.
Paediatric intubation in the emergency department is uncommon. Collaboration and appropriate training for doctors in emergency medicine, anaesthesia and paediatrics is essential.
The objective of this research was to examine the speed of onset and effectiveness of pain relief between oral and intravenous morphine in acutely injured children. An observational study of children aged 3 to 13 years with closed forearm fractures was performed in three accident and emergency departments. The study gathered information on age, gender, body weight, time of arrival, dose, route and time of morphine administration. Pain assessment using a Faces Scale was documented on arrival and repeated at 10, 30 and 60 minutes after morphine was given. Forty-seven children were studied. Of these, 25 were given intravenous morphine, 22 were given oral morphine. There was no statistically significant difference in age, body weight or time until morphine was administered. The change in median pain scores was analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. This showed that there was a statistically significant reduction in pain score in the intravenous group compared with the oral group between arrival and 10 minutes after giving morphine and between arrival and 60 minutes after giving morphine. Intravenous morphine appears to give more rapid onset and more prolonged pain relief than oral morphine for children with acute injuries. We recommend that in accident and emergency departments where staff are experienced in paediatric cannulation, morphine should be given via the intravenous route in acutely injured children. However we do not advocate inexperienced staff attempting multiple venepunctures in a child resulting in increased anxiety.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.