Characterizing intubation practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective The risk of occupational exposure during endotracheal intubation has required the global Emergency Medicine (EM), Anesthesia, and Critical Care communities to institute new COVID- protected intubation guidelines, checklists, and protocols. This survey aimed to deepen the understanding of the changes in intubation practices across Canada by evaluating the pre-COVID-19, early-COVID-19, and present-day periods, elucidating facilitators and barriers to implementation, and understanding provider impressions of the effectiveness and safety of the changes made. Methods We conducted an electronic, self-administered, cross-sectional survey of EM physician site leads within the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) to characterize and compare airway management practices in the pre-COVID-19, early-COVID-19, and present-day periods. Ethics approval for this study was obtained from the University of Manitoba Health Research Ethics Board. The electronic platform SurveyMonkey ( www.surveymonkey.com ) was used to collect and store survey tool responses. Categorical item responses, including the primary outcome, are reported as numbers and proportions. Variations in intubation practices over time were evaluated through mixed-effects logistic regression models. Results Invitations were sent to 33 emergency department (ED) physician site leads in the CCEDRRN. We collected 27 survey responses, 4 were excluded, and 23 analysed. Responses were collected in English (87%) and French (13%), from across Canada and included mainly physicians practicing in mainly Academic and tertiary sites (83%). All respondents reported that the intubation protocols used in their EDs changed in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (100%, n = 23, 95% CI 0.86-1.00). Conclusions This study provides a novel summary of changes to airway management practices in response to the evolving COVID-19 pandemic in Canada. Information from this study could help inform a consensus on safe and effective emergent intubation of persons with communicable respiratory infections in the future.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".