P088: Procedural sedation in Canadian emergency departments a national survey of airway management, patient monitoring, and adverse events

Abstract

Introduction: Emergency department (ED) physicians strive to provide analgesia, amnesia and sedation for patients undergoing painful procedures through the use of procedural sedation (PS). While, PS is generally safe and effective in the ED, there is institutional variability and clinician disagreement with respect to the bedside equipment required for airway management and the monitoring of adverse events. The primary goal of this research project was to describe the variability of the bedside setup utilized by Canadian ED physicians preforming PS in conjunction with self-reported adverse events. Methods: An electronic survey was distributed through the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP). Practicing physician members of CAEP were invited to complete the survey. The 20 question survey encompassed various aspects of PS including physician choices regarding bedside setup of airway equipment, and prevalence of self-reported adverse events. The primary outcome was the quantification of variability among ED physicians with respect to the above listed aspects of PS. Data was presented with simple descriptive statistics. Results: 278 ED physicians responded to our survey (response rate 20.9%). Respondents were primarily academic (53.2%) or community hospital based (38.2%). With emergency medicine training as: CCFP-EM (55.2%), FRCPC (30.1%), and CCFP (9.0%). The ED area in which PS was carried out varied; bedside (30.5%), procedure room (37.1%), resuscitation area (31.2%). The basic equipment set utilized appears to be a bag valve mask, suction, and an oral airway. These 3 items were present 95.4%, 95.9%, and 86.3% of the time respectively. The preparation of other items such as capnography and difficult airway equipment is highly variable and appears to be physician specific rather than clinical situation specific. The most common physician self-reported adverse events associated with PS appear to be hypoxia (Spo2<90%), hypotension (sBP<90), and prolonged sedation which occurred in 10.7%, 8.3%, and 8.1% of PS performed. Conclusion: There appears to be significant practice variability with respect to the clinical setting as well as the equipment ED physicians prefer when administering PS. Given that causal relationships cannot be inferred between airway/monitoring equipment preferences and adverse events, future studies should be targeted at identifying optimal bedside set ups which minimize adverse events.