Emergent Cricothyrotomy: Multiple Professions Feedback on Challenges of Maintaining Competency
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background: In critical cannot intubate cannot oxygenate situations, cricothyrotomies are an option for an emergent airway; however, many people practice for years without performing or assisting with one. This survey set out to discover what equipment and education would enable familiarity and competency with performing/assisting with this procedure based on experience. Methods: Interior Health comprises community to tertiary hospitals. 62 individuals within IH responded to an 18-question survey: 3% anesthesia assistant (AA), 7% anesthesiologist, 24% emergency physician, 2% ENT physician, 14% internist/intensivist, and 50% RT. Representation was from a wide spectrum of career experience: 15% 0-2 years, 11% 3-5 years, 36% 6-10 years, 19% 11-20 years, and 19% greater than 20 years. IH Privacy Impact department and ARECCI IRB approved this survey. Results: 75% of the physicians, RTs, and AAs felt that scalpel bougie procedure is the easiest method of performing a cricothyrotomy to maintain competency. Currently only 70% of RTs and AAs agree or strongly agree they are familiar with their role during an emergent cricothyrotomy and 53% agree or strongly agree they are competent assisting. 65% of all participants stated that their workplace had more than one type of emergent cricothyrotomy kit and 30% strongly disagreed, disagreed, or were neutral to being familiar with emergent cricothyrotomy equipment at their hospital. 69% of participants were agreeable to having only one emergent cricothyrotomy procedure and set of equipment even if this meant it was not their preferred method. 61% of participants have never performed or assisted with an emergent cricothyrotomy. 52% of participants would like hands-on cricothyrotomy education simulations every year. Conclusions: Standardization of equipment and procedure may improve competency but there is some initial opposition to this option. Best success for positive patient outcomes as well as ease of performing and assisting is by using the scalpel bougie method. Yearly hands-on education is desired for familiarity and competency with the cricothyrotomy procedure as this study revealed that many participants of this survey have not yet had to perform/assist with this skill throughout their career, and those that have, have done so quite infrequently. This provides us with an opportunity to develop multidisciplinary education/simulation days to support overall success for both patients and the professionals involved in emergent cricothyrotomies.Maintaining Cricothyrotomy Competency AgreeNeutralDisagreeIt would be easier to maintain competency if there was only one type of emergent cricothyrotomy equipment N=6268%RT & AA =70%Physician=66%22%RT & AA =21%Physician=24%10%RT & AA=9%Physician=10%Would you be agreeable to having only one emergent cricothyrotomy procedure and set of equipment even if this meant it was not your preferred method of emergent cricothyrotomy? N=6169%RT & AA=85%Physician=50%N/A31%RT & AA=15%Physician=50%Virtual education is equivalent to hands on education with emergent cricothyrotomy N=623%RT & AA=6%Physician =0%16%RT & AA=12%Physician=21%81%RT & AA =82%Physician=79%Methods of Performing Emergent Cricothyrotomy SCALPEL BOUGIESURGICAL CRICOTHYROTOMY TRAYPRE-MANUFACTURED KITUNCERTAINWhich method of performing an emergent cricothyrotomy do you feel has the greatest evidence for improved patient outcomes? N=6257%RT & AA=67%Physician=41%3%RT & AA=0%Physician=7%10%RT & AA=9%Physician=14%30%RT &AA=24Physician=38%Which method of performing an emergent cricothyrotomy do you feel is the easiest for your profession to maintain competency? N=6176%RT & AA=88%Physician=61%3%RT & AA=0%Physician=7%21%RT & AA=12%Physician=32%0%RT & AA=0%Physician=0%
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».