Tracheal Intubation by Advanced Practice Registered Nurses in Pediatric Critical Care: Retrospective Study From the National Emergency Airway for Children Registry (2015–2019)*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To describe tracheal intubation (TI) practice by Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs) in North American PICUs, including rates of TI-associated events (TIAEs) from 2015 to 2019. DESIGN/SETTING: Retrospective study using the National Emergency Airway Registry for Children with all TIs performed in PICU and pediatric cardiac ICU between January 2015 and December 2019. The primary outcome was first attempt TI success rate. Secondary outcomes were TIAEs, severe TIAEs, and hypoxemia. SUBJECTS: Critically ill children requiring TI in a PICU or pediatric cardiac ICU. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Among 11,012 TIs, APRNs performed 1,626 (14.7%). Overall, TI by APRNs, compared with other clinicians, occurred less frequently in patients with known difficult airway (11.1% vs. 14.3%; p < 0.001), but more frequently in infants younger than 1 year old (55.9% vs. 44.4%; p < 0.0001), and in patients with cardiac disease (26.3% vs. 15.9%; p < 0.0001).There was lower odds of success in first attempt TI for APRNs vs. other clinicians (adjusted odds ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.62-0.79). We failed to identify a difference in rates of TIAE, severe TIAE, and oxygen desaturation events for TIs by APRNs compared with other clinicians. The TI first attempt success rate improved with APRN experience (< 1 yr: 54.2%, 1-5 yr: 59.4%, 6-10 yr: 67.6%, > 10 yr: 63.1%; p = 0.021). CONCLUSIONS: TI performed by APRNs was associated with lower odds of first attempt success when compared with other ICU clinicians although there was no appreciable difference in procedural adverse events. There appears to be a positive relationship between experience and success rates. These data suggest there is an ongoing need for opportunities to build on TI competency with APRNs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".