• Harsh Sule, Miriam Kulkarni, Gregory Sugalski, and Tiffany Murano.
• Emergency Medicine, Rutgers New Jersey Medical School, Newark, USA.
• Cureus. 2020 Mar 27; 12 (3): e7433.

AbstractObjective To determine the impact of Level C personal protective equipment (PPE) on the time to perform intravenous (IV) cannulation and endotracheal intubation, both with and without the use of adjuncts. Methods This prospective, case-control study of emergency medicine resident physicians was designed to assess the time taken by each subject to perform endotracheal intubation using both direct laryngoscopy (DL) and video laryngoscopy (VL), as well as peripheral IV cannulation both with and without ultrasound guidance and with and without PPE. Results While median times were higher using VL as compared to DL, there was no significant difference between intubation with either DL or VL in subjects with and without Level C PPE. Similarly, no significant difference in time was found for intravenous cannulation in the PPE and no-PPE groups, both with and without ultrasound guidance. Conclusions Existing skill proficiency was maintained despite wearing PPE and there was no advantage with the addition of adjuncts such as video-assisted laryngoscopy and ultrasound-guided intravenous cannulation. A safe and cost-effective strategy might be to conduct basic, just-in-time PPE training to enhance familiarity with donning, doffing, and mobility, and couple this with the use of personnel who have maximal proficiency in the relevant emergency skill, instead of more expensive, continuous, skills-focused PPE training.Copyright © 2020, Sule et al.

8 keywords...

hide…