Maintaining Prehospital Intubation Success with COVID-19 Personal Protective Precautions.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation is a high-risk intervention for exposure to airborne infective pathogens, including the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). During the recent pandemic, personal protective equipment (PPE) was essential to protect staff during intubation but is recognized to make the practical conduct of anesthesia and intubation more difficult. In the early phase of the coronavirus pandemic, some simple alterations were made to the emergency anesthesia standard operating procedure (SOP) of a prehospital critical care service to attempt to maintain high intubation success rates despite the challenges posed by wearing PPE. This retrospective observational cohort study aims to compare first-pass intubation success rates before and after the introduction of PPE and an altered SOP. METHODOLOGY: A retrospective observational cohort study was conducted from January 1, 2019 through August 30, 2021. The retrospective analysis used prospectively collected data using prehospital electronic patient records. Anonymized data were held in Excel (v16.54) and analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics (v28). Patient inclusion criteria were those of all ages who received a primary tracheal intubation attempt outside the hospital by critical care teams. March 27, 2020 was the date from which the SOP changed to mandatory COVID-19 SOP including Level 3 PPE - this date is used to separate the cohort groups. RESULTS: Data were analyzed from 1,266 patients who received primary intubations by the service. The overall first-pass intubation success rate was 89.7% and the overall intubation success rate was 99.9%. There was no statistically significant difference in first-pass success rate between the two groups: 90.3% in the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546) and 89.3% in the COVID-19 group (n = 720); Pearson chi-square 0.329; P = .566. In addition, there was no statistical difference in overall intubation success rate between groups: 99.8% in the pre-COVID-19 group and 100.0% in the COVID-19 group; Pearson chi-square 1.32; P = .251.Non-drug-assisted intubations were more than twice as likely to require multiple attempts in both the pre-COVID-19 group (n = 546; OR = 2.15; 95% CI, 1.19-3.90; P = .01) and in the COVID-19 group (n = 720; OR = 2.5; 95% CI, 1.5-4.1; P = <.001). CONCLUSION: This study presents simple changes to a prehospital intubation SOP in response to COVID-19 which included mandatory use of PPE, the first intubator always being the most experienced clinician, and routine first use of video laryngoscopy (VL). These changes allowed protection of the clinical team while successfully maintaining the first-pass and overall success rates for prehospital tracheal intubation.

First steps toward understanding the variability in acute pain service provision and the quality of pain relief in everyday practice across the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Pain management for patients in hospital is a major problem. There is significant variation in care provision. Evidence is needed about the ways in which acute pain services are organized in order to understand whether these are linked to important differences in patient outcomes. The National Inpatient Pain Study group is a voluntary collaborative venture of inpatient pain specialists in the United Kingdom who are working toward establishing a national prospective database of service provision and activity. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this article are (1) to describe current pain service provision and activity (2) to define and monitor the quality and side effects of the primary analgesic techniques, such as central neuraxial block or systemic analgesia, and identify variations in practice. METHODS: Phase 1: Surveys were conducted in two phases during 2010-2011. Information about the organization of services was collected from 121 centers via a live Website. Phase 2: The pilot clinical dataset was collected from 13 hospitals in 2011. RESULTS: Results indicated that staffing varied widely from one to nine nurses per hospital site. Twelve percent of hospitals did not routinely collect data. The main workload was orthopedic and general surgery based on data from 13 hospitals and 29,080 patients in 2011. Thirty-seven percent of patients reported a pain score of moderate to severe pain on the first assessment by the specialist pain team, and 21% reported severe pain. Nausea and vomiting was the most frequent adverse event reported. Sixty-nine major adverse events were logged, of which 64 documented respiratory depression (N = 29,080, 0.22%). CONCLUSIONS: Prospective longitudinal data has the potential to improve our understanding of variation in process and outcome measures and establish future research priorities.