Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T03:55:52.817Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Ambulance Environment Adversely Affect the Ability to Perform Oral Endotracheal Intubation?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

John E. Gough ,
Stephen H. Thomas ,
Lawrence H. Brown ,
James E. Reese  and
C. Keith Stone
John E. Gough*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Emergency Medical Services, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina
Stephen H. Thomas
Affiliation:
Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
Lawrence H. Brown
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Emergency Medical Services, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina
James E. Reese
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Division of Emergency Medical Services, East Carolina University School of Medicine, Greenville, North Carolina
C. Keith Stone
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky
*
Division of EMS, Building M, Physicians' Quadrangle, Greenville, NC 27858-4354USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Oral endotracheal intubation (ETI) is the preferred method of controlling the airway in critically ill or injured patients. It was postulated that time could be saved if intubation was performed in the ambulance en route to the hospital. This study was designed to determine whether the ambulance environment adversely affected the ability of emergency medical technicians at the advanced-intermediate level (EMT-AI) to perform oral ETI.

Hypothesis:

The restrictive environment of a moving ambulance would affect adversely the ability of EMT-AIs to perform ETI compared with a controlled setting. This would result in a significant increase in the time necessary to perform ETI in the ambulance compared with a controlled setting not complicated by restrictive space and motion.

Methods:

Twenty on-duty EMT-AIs were recruited to volunteer for this prospective, nonrandomized, nonblinded trial. All participants performed three consecutive oral ETIs on an airway mannequin in two settings: 1) in the back of a moving ambulance; and 2) on a table in the rescue squad station. Of the participants, 10 performed the intubations in the ambulance first; the remainder performed the intubations at the station first. Time for intubation with the mannequin was recorded by stopwatch. The mean times for intubation in both settings were compared by Student's t-test (p<0.05).

Results:

All intubation attempts were successful. The mean time for intubation in the station was 13.0±3.4 seconds. The mean time in the ambulance setting was 13.2±5.3 seconds. There was no significant difference between the intubation times in the two settings (p = 0.88).

Conclusion:

The environment of a moving ambulance does not appear to hinder the ability of EMT-AIs to perform oral ETI in a laboratory setting with a mannequin model.

Keywords

ambulanceemergency medical technicianendotracheal intubationskills intubation time
Type
Brief Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 11 , Issue 2 , June 1996 , pp. 141 - 143
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 1996

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Feero, S, Hedges, JR, Simmons, E, Irwin, L: Does out-of-hospital EMS time affect trauma survival? Am J Emerg Med 1995;13:133–135.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Propp, DA, Rosenberg, CA: A comparison of prehospital estimated time of arrival and actual time of arrival to an emergency department. Am J Emerg Med 1991;9:301–303.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Spaite, DW, Tse, DJ, Valenzuela, TD, et al. : The impact of injury severity and prehospital procedures on scene time in victims of major trauma. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:1299–1305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Durham, LA, Richardson, RJ, Wall, MJ, et al. : Emergency center thoracotomy: Impact of prehospital resuscitation. J Trauma 1992;32:775–779.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Fitzgerald, MC: Field and accident site resuscitation. Med J Anst 1991;154:299–300.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Atherton, GL, Johnson, JC: Ability of paramedics to use the Combitube in prehospital cardiac arrest. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:1263–1268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7. Pepe, PE, Zachariah, BS, Chandra, NC: Invasive airway techniques in resuscitation. Ann Emerg Med 1993;22:393–403.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Scannell, G, Waxman, K, Tominaga, G, et al. : Orotracheal intubation in trauma patients with cervical fractures. Arch Surg 1993;128:903–906.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Stratton, SJ, Kane, G, Gunter, CS, et al. : Prospective study of manikin-only versus manikin and human subject endotracheal intubation training of paramedics. Ann Emerg Med 1991;20:1314–1318.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed