We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
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.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.