Ventilator Boot Camp Improves the Knowledge and Skills Associated With Mechanical Ventilator Use During Interfacility Transport of Intubated Pediatric Patients.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Pediatrics Section on Transport recommends the use of portable ventilators during the transport of patients with advanced airways. We sought to identify knowledge gaps and evaluate the effectiveness of a transport ventilator competency boot camp. METHODS: Electronic health records of children requiring ventilatory support during air and ground interfacility transport from January 1 through December 31, 2015, were reviewed to determine when manual ventilation was used in lieu of a portable ventilator, and simulations were constructed from commonly occurring scenarios. All registered respiratory therapists trained in air and ground critical-care transports participated. Demographic data were collected. We assessed performance on 3 facilitated simulated scenarios using a ventilator connected to a low-fidelity pediatric mannequin attached to breathing simulator. Scores were based on the participants' ability to correctly perform pre-use checks, select and optimize ventilator settings, set alarms, and complete safety checks. A 60-min interactive education intervention was conducted between the pre- and post-assessments. The pre-assessment, intervention, and post-assessment were conducted 6 weeks apart. De-identified assessments were scored, and results were shared after study completion. Descriptive statistics reported participant demographics. Paired t tests compared before and after assessments. Statistical significance was established at P < .05. RESULTS: A total of 172 electronic health records were reviewed. Manual ventilation was used more frequently in toddlers requiring pressure control ventilation; noninvasive ventilation was rarely used. A total of 17 registered respiratory therapists participated; 18% were male, 41% had 6-9 years of tenure and 5 years of experience with our transport team. Completing ventilator pre-use check and engaging alarms provided the most opportunity for improvement. Improvements were greater with the use of noninvasive ventilation (P = .006) than pressure control ventilation (P = .10) and volume control ventilation use (P = .07). CONCLUSIONS: Quality data were useful in identifying areas requiring knowledge and competency assessment. Re-assessment results validated the need to conduct education and competency assessment at defined intervals.

Evaluation of Functional Characteristics of 4 Oscillatory Positive Pressure Devices in a Simulated Cystic Fibrosis Model.

BACKGROUND: Oscillatory positive expiratory pressure (OPEP) is an airway clearance therapy that delivers positive pressure and air-flow oscillations during exhalation. This study described functional characteristic differences of 4 OPEP devices during an active exhalation in a simulated model. We hypothesized peak pressure (Ppeak), positive expiratory pressure (PEP), oscillatory frequency (f), and pressure amplitude will differ, depending upon the device used, device resistance setting, and time (repeated consecutive active exhalations through the device). METHODS: The ASL 5000 was scripted to simulate pulmonary mechanics of a pediatric cystic fibrosis patient with moderate to severe lung disease. Airway resistance was standardized at 17.1 cm H2O/L/s, pulmonary compliance at 42.1 mL/cm H2O, active exhalation at 22 breaths/min, and tidal volume at 409 mL. Resistance settings for the Acapella, RC-Cornet, Flutter, and Aerobika were adjusted to low, medium, and high. Values for f, Ppeak, PEP, and pressure amplitude were recorded for 1 min and graphically displayed. RESULTS: Significant effects for time, device, and resistance (P < .01) were noted for Ppeak, PEP, and pressure amplitude at each resistance level, demonstrating that the devices functioned differently as more than one repetition of a series of consecutive active exhalations are performed. Significant interaction effects for device, resistance level, and time indicate inconsistent output for Ppeak (P < .01), PEP (P < .01), and pressure amplitude (P < .01). Oscillatory f values fell within the respective manufacturers' operational parameters. The Aerobika provided the most consistent pressure amplitude across resistance settings and produced the highest mean pressure amplitude at medium and high resistance settings. CONCLUSIONS: Statistically significant and clinically relevant variations in Ppeak, PEP, and pressure amplitude occurred between devices and within a device, as the resistance setting changed. The combination of device, time, and resistance settings affects OPEP device output for pressure, amplitude, and oscillatory frequency. Functional variations may impact therapeutic effectiveness, warranting additional study to determine clinical impact.

Evaluating the Effect of Flow and Interface Type on Pressures Delivered With Bubble CPAP in a Simulated Model.

BACKGROUND: Bubble CPAP, used for spontaneously breathing infants to avoid intubation or postextubation support, can be delivered with different interface types. This study compared the effect that interfaces had on CPAP delivery. We hypothesized that there would be no difference between set and measured levels between interface types. METHODS: A validated preterm infant nasal airway model was attached to the ASL 5000 breathing simulator. The simulator was programmed to deliver active breathing of a surfactant-deficient premature infant with breathing frequency at 70 breaths/min inspiratory time of 0.30 s, resistance of 150 cm H2O/L/s, compliance of 0.5 mL/cm H2O, tidal volume of 5 mL, and esophageal pressure of -10 cm H2O. Nasal CPAP prongs, size 4030, newborn and infant RAM cannulas were connected to a nasal airway model and a bubble CPAP system. CPAP levels were set at 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 cm H2O with flows of 6, 8, and 10 L/min each. Measurements were recorded after 1 min of stabilization. The analysis was performed using SAS 9.4. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test assessed normality of the data. The Friedman test was used to compare non-normally distributed repeated measures. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to conduct post hoc analysis. All tests were 2-sided, and P values of <.05 were considered as indicating significant differences unless otherwise indicated. RESULTS: At lower set CPAP levels, 4-6 cm H2O, measured CPAP dropped precipitously with the nasal prongs with the highest flow setting. At higher CPAP levels, 7-9 cm H2O measured CPAP concomitantly increased as the flow setting increased. Statistically significant differences in set and measured CPAP occurred for all devices across all CPAP levels, with the measured CPAP less than set for all conditions, P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: Set flow had a profound effect on measured CPAP. The concomitant drop in measured pressure with high and low flows could be attributed to increased resistance to spontaneous breathing or insufficient flow to meet inspiratory demand. Clinicians should be aware of the effect that the interface and flow have on CPAP delivery.