Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine
Published in: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Original research

Impact of drug and equipment preparation on pre-hospital emergency Anaesthesia (PHEA) procedural time, error rate and cognitive load

Authors: Paul Swinton, Alasdair R. Corfield, Chris Moultrie, David Percival, Jeffrey Proctor, Neil Sinclair, Zane B. Perkins

Published in: Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

We examined the effect of advanced preparation and organisation of equipment and drugs for Pre-hospital Emergency Anaesthesia (PHEA) and tracheal intubation on procedural time, error rates, and cognitive load.

Methods

This study was a randomised, controlled experiment with a crossover design. Clinical teams (physician and paramedic) from the Emergency Medical Retrieval Service and the Scottish Air Ambulance Division were randomised to perform a standardised pre-hospital clinical simulation using either unprepared (standard practice) or pre-prepared (experimental method) PHEA equipment and drugs. Following a two-week washout period, each team performed the corresponding simulation. The primary outcome was intervention time. Secondary outcomes were safety-related incidents and errors, and degree of cognitive load.

Results

In total 23 experiments were completed, 12 using experimental method and 11 using standard practice. Time required to perform PHEA using the experimental method was significantly shorter than with standard practice (11,45 versus 20:59) minutes: seconds; p = < 0.001). The experimental method also significantly reduced procedural errors (0 versus 9, p = 0.007) and the cognitive load experienced by the intubator assistant (41.9 versus 68.7 mm, p = 0.006).

Conclusions

Pre-preparation of PHEA equipment and drugs resulted in safer performance of PHEA and has the potential to reduce on-scene time by up to a third.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Brown J, Rosengart M, Forsythe R, Reynolds B, Gestring M, Hallinan W, et al. Not all prehospital time is equal: influence of scene time on mortality. J Trauma Acute Care Surg. 2016;81:93–100.CrossRef
2.
Lockey D, Crewdson K, Davies G, Jenkins B, Klein J, Laird C, et al. AAGBI: safer pre-hospital anaesthesia 2017. Anaesth. 2017;72:379–90.CrossRef
3.
Weingart S, Levitan R. Preoxygenation and prevention of desaturation during emergency airway management. Ann Emerg Med. 2012;59:165–75.CrossRef
4.
Cook T, Woodall N, Frerk C. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the difficult airway society. Part 1: Anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:617–31.CrossRef
5.
Cook T, Woodall N, Harper J, Benger J. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the difficult airway society. Part 2: intensive care and emergency departments. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:632–42.CrossRef
6.
Burgess M CK, Locky D.J, Perkins Z.B. Pre-hospital emergency Anaesthesia: an updated survey of UK practice with emphasis on the role of standardisation and checklists. Emerg Med J 2018 (in press). 2018.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ScotSTAR. Standard operating procedure emergency Anaesthesia. Scottish ambulance service 2015.
11.
Gentili R, Rietschel J, Jaquess K, Lo L-C, Prevost C, Miller M, et al. Brain biomarkers based assessment of cognitive workload in pilots under various task demands. Conf Proc IEEE Eng Med Biol Soc. 2014:5860–3.
12.
DiDomenico AT. An investigation on subjective assessments of workload and postural stability under conditions of joint mental and physical demands: Virginia Tech; 2003.
13.
Lockey DJ, Crewdson K, Lossius HM. Pre-hospital anaesthesia: the same but different. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113:211–9.CrossRef
14.
van der Velden MW, Ringburg AN, Bergs EA, Steyerberg EW, Patka P, Schipper IB. Pre-hospital interventions: time wasted or time saved? An observational cohort study of management in initial trauma care. Emerg Med J. 2008;25:444–9.CrossRef
15.
Harmsen AM, Giannakopoulos GF, Moerbeek PR, Jansma EP, Bonjer HJ, Bloemers FW. The influence of pre-hospital time on trauma patients outcome: a systematic review. Injury. 2015;46:602–9.CrossRef
16.
Gausche M, Lewis RJ, Stratton SJ, Haynes BE, Gunter CS, Goodrich SM, et al. Effect of out-of-hospital pediatric endotracheal intubation on survival and neurological outcome: a controlled clinical trial. JAMA. 2000;283:783–90.CrossRef
17.
Durrand J, Batterham A, Danjoux G. Pre-habilitation (i): aggregation of marginal gains. Anaesthesia. 2014;69:403–6.CrossRef
18.
Glavin R. Drug errors: consequences, mechanisms, and avoidance. Br J Anaesth. 2010;105:76–82.CrossRef
19.
Stelfox HT, Palmisani S, Scurlock C, Orav EJ, Bates DW. The “to err is human” report and the patient safety literature. BMJ Quality and Safety in Health Care. 2006;15:174–8.CrossRef
20.
Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard medical practice study I. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:370–6.CrossRef
21.
Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, et al. The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients: results of the Harvard medical practice study II. N Engl J Med. 1991;324:377–84.CrossRef
22.
Pandit J, Andrade J, Bogod D, Hitchman J, Jonker W, Lucas N, et al. The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors. Br J Anaesth. 2014;113:549–59.CrossRef
23.
Cook T, Scott S, Mihai R. Litigation related to airway and respiratory complications of anaesthesia: an analysis of claims against the NHS in England 1995–2007. Anaesthesia. 2010;65:556–63.CrossRef
24.
Abeysekera A, Bergman IJ, Kluger MT, Short TG. Drug error in anaesthetic practice: a review of 896 reports from the Australian incident monitoring study database. Anaesthesia. 2005;60:220–7.CrossRef
25.
Jensen LS, Merry AF, Webster CS, Weller J, Larsson L. Evidence-based strategies for preventing drug administration errors during anaesthesia. Anaesthesia. 2004;59:493–4.CrossRef
26.
27.
Webster CS, Merry AF, Ducat CM. Safety, cost and predrawn emergency drugs. Anaesthesia. 2001;56:799–20.CrossRef
28.
29.
Berman BA, Dismukes RK. Pressing the approach: a NASA study of 19 recent accidents yields a new perspective on pilot error. Aviat Saf World. 2006;206:28–33.
30.
Lauria MJ, Gallo IA, Rush S, Brooks J, Spiegel R, Weingart SD. Psychological skills to improve emergency care providers’ performance under stress. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;70:884–90.CrossRef
31.
32.
33.
Petrosoniak A, Gray A, Fan M, White K, McGowan M, Pinkney S, et al. MP036: trauma resuscitation using in-situ simulation team training (TRUST): a novel approach to latent safety threat identification in trauma care, vol. 18: CJEM Cambridge University Press; 2016. p. S78–9.
34.
35.
Huttunen K, Keränen H, Väyrynen E, Pääkkönen R, Leino T. Effect of cognitive load on speech prosody in aviation: evidence from military simulator flights. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:348–57.CrossRef
36.
Wewers ME, Lowe NK. A critical review of visual analogue scales in the measurement of clinical phenomena. Res Nurs Health. 1990;13:227–36.CrossRef
37.
Pollock K. NHS greater Glasgow and Clyde pharmacy production unit. Hospital Pharmacy Stock System. Accessed 14 Aug. 2018.
38.
Metadata
Title
Impact of drug and equipment preparation on pre-hospital emergency Anaesthesia (PHEA) procedural time, error rate and cognitive load
Authors
Paul Swinton
Alasdair R. Corfield
Chris Moultrie
David Percival
Jeffrey Proctor
Neil Sinclair
Zane B. Perkins
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13049-018-0549-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine 1/2018 Go to the issue

Original research

The role of a checklist for assessing the quality of basic life support performance: an observational cohort study

Original research

Streptococcal M1 protein induces hyporesponsiveness and cytokine release from human arteries in a fibrinogen-dependent manner: a translational study

Original research

Quality of life and level of post-traumatic stress disorder among trauma patients: A comparative study between a regional and a university hospital

Review

Pre-hospital extra-corporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation

Original research

Comparison of a novel, endoscopic chest tube insertion technique versus the standard, open technique performed by novice users in a human cadaver model: a randomized, crossover, assessor-blinded study

Original research

The final assessment and its association with field assessment in patients who were transported by the emergency medical service