Use of intraosseous devices in trauma: a survey of trauma practitioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although used primarily in the pediatric population for decades, the use of intraosseous (IO) devices in the resuscitation of severely injured adult trauma patients has recently become more commonplace. The objective of this study was to determine the experience level, beliefs and attitudes of trauma practitioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand regarding the use of IO devices in adult trauma patients. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey to all members of 4 national trauma and emergency medicine organizations in Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Survey responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, univariate comparisons and a proportional odds model. RESULTS: Overall, 425 of 1771 members completed the survey, with 375 being trauma practitioners. IO devices were available to 97% (353 of 363), with EZ-IO being the most common. Nearly all physicians (98%, 357 of 366) had previous training with IO devices, and 85% (223 of 261) had previously used an IO device in adult trauma patients. Most respondents (79%, 285 of 361) were very comfortable placing an IO catheter in the proximal tibia. Most physicians would always or often use an IO catheter in a patient without intravenous access undergoing CPR for traumatic cardiac arrest (84%, 274 of 326) or in a hypotensive patient (without peripheral intravenous access) after 2 attempts or 90 s of trying to establish vascular access (81%, 264 of 326). CONCLUSION: Intraosseous devices are readily available to trauma practitioners in Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and most physicians are trained in device placement. Most physicians surveyed felt comfortable using an IO device in resuscitation of adult trauma patients and would do so for indications broader than current guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".