Advanced airway management and drug-assisted intubation skills in an advanced critical care practitioner team.

INTRODUCTION: Airway management, including endotracheal intubation, is one of the cornerstones of care of critically ill patients. Internationally, health professionals from varying backgrounds deliver endotracheal intubation as part of their critical care role. This article considers the development of airway management skills within a single advanced critical care practitioner (ACCP) team and uses case series data to analyse the safety profile in performing this aspect of critical care. Skills were acquired during and after the ACCP training pathway. A combination of theoretical teaching, theatre experience, simulation and work-based practice was used. Case series data of all critical care intubations by ACCPs were collected. Audit results: Data collection identified 675 intubations carried out by ACCPs, 589 of those being supervised, non-cardiac arrest intubations requiring drugs. First pass success was achieved in 89.6% of cases. A second intubator was required in 4.3% of cases. Some form of complication was experienced by 42.3% of patients; however, the threshold for complications was set at a low level. CONCLUSIONS: This ACCP service developed a process to acquire advanced airway management skills including endotracheal intubation. Under medical supervision, ACCPs delivered advanced airway management achieving a first pass success rate of 89.6%, which compares favourably with both international and national success rates. Although complications were experienced in 48.3% of patients, when similar complication cut-offs are compared with published data, ACCPs also matched favourably.

Evaluation of the safety of inter-hospital transfers of critically ill patients led by advanced critical care practitioners.

INTRODUCTION: Ten thousand inter-hospital transfers of critically ill adults take place annually in the UK. Studies highlight deficiencies in experience and training of staff, equipment, stabilisation before departure, and logistical difficulties. This article is a quality improvement review of an advanced critical care practitioner (ACCP)-led inter-hospital transfer service. METHODS: The tool Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence was used as the format for the review, combined with clinical audit of advanced critical care practitioner-led transfers over a period of more than 3 years. RESULTS: The transfer service has operated for 8 years; ACCPs conducted 934 critical care transfers of mechanically ventilated patients, including 286 inter-hospital transfers, between January 2017 and September 2020. The acuity of transfer patients was high, 82.2% required support of more than one organ, 49% required more than 50% oxygen. Uneventful transfer occurred in 81.4% of cases; the most common patient-related complication being hypotension, logistical issues were responsible for half of the complications. CONCLUSION: This quality improvement project provides an example of safe and effective advanced practice in an area that is traditionally a medically led domain. ACCPs can provide an alternative process of care for critically ill adults who require external transfer, and a benchmark for audit and quality improvement.

The provision of central venous access, transfer of critically ill patients and advanced airway management.: Are advanced critical care practitioners safe and effective?

Advanced critical care practitioners are a new and growing component of the critical care multidisciplinary team in the United Kingdom. This audit considers the safety profile of advanced critical care practitioners in the provision of central venous catheterisation and transfer of ventilated critical care patients without direct supervision and supervised drug assisted intubation of critically ill patients. The audit showed that advanced critical care practitioners can perform central venous cannulation, transfer of critically ill ventilated patients and intubation with parity to published UK literature.

A systematic review of adjuncts for intravenous regional anesthesia for surgical procedures.

PURPOSE: To review the use of adjuncts to intravenous regional anesthesia (IVRA) for surgical procedures in terms of their intraoperative effects (efficacy of block and tourniquet pain) and postoperative analgesia. SOURCE: A systematic search (Medline, Embase, reference lists) for randomized, controlled and double-blinded studies using adjuncts to IVRA for surgical procedures was conducted. Data were collected on intraoperative effects (onset/offset and quality of block and tourniquet pain), postoperative effects (pain intensity and analgesic consumption) and side effects recorded. Statistical significance as indicated in the original report and likely clinical relevance were taken into account to arrive at a judgment of overall benefit. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Twenty-nine studies met all inclusion criteria. Data on 1,217 study subjects are included. Adjuncts used were opioids (fentanyl, meperidine, morphine, sufentanil), tramadol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs; ketorolac, tenoxicam, acetyl-salicylate), clonidine, muscle relaxants (atracurium, pancuronium, mivacurium), alkalinization with sodium bicarbonate, potassium and temperature. There is good evidence to recommend NSAIDs in general and ketorolac in particular, for improving postoperative analgesia. Clonidine 1 microg/kg also appears to improve postoperative analgesia and prolong tourniquet tolerance. Opioids are poor by this route; only meperidine 30 mg or more has substantial postoperative benefit but at the expense of postdeflation nausea, vomiting and dizziness. Muscle relaxants improve intraoperative motor block and aid fracture reduction. CONCLUSION: Using NSAIDs or clonidine as adjuncts to IVRA improves postoperative analgesia and muscle relaxant improves motor block.