Comparison of techniques for securing the endotracheal tube while wearing chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear protection: a manikin study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to assess the impact of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear personal protective equipment (CBRN-PPE) on the ability to secure an endotracheal tube (ETT) with either the Thomas Tube Holder™ or cotton tape tied in a knot. METHODS: Seventy-five clinicians secured an ETT in a previously intubated manikin with the Thomas Tube Holder™ and cotton tape. A mixed quantitative and qualitative research design was used to gauge actual performance times and perceptions of difficulties. Following completion of the study, 25 clinicians were interviewed to gauge their experiences of securing the ETT with both devices while wearing CBRN-PPE. RESULTS: The mean time to apply the Thomas Tube Holder was 29.02 seconds, compared with tape which took a mean of 58 seconds (p=0.001). Clinicians rated the Thomas Tube Holder as easier to use than tape (Mann-Whitney z=9.934; p<0.001), which was confirmed during interviews. Of the clinicians interviewed, 92% perceived that the Thomas Tube Holder provided the better method for securing an ETT, none of the clinicians identified the tape as the best method for securing the endotracheal tube while wearing CBRN-PPE. Clinicians identified that the design of the Thomas Tube Holder facilitated the gross motor movement required for application. CONCLUSIONS: The Thomas Tube Holder is easier and faster to apply when wearing CBRN-PPE when compared with cotton, and the Thomas Tube Holder is perceived by the participants as being more effective at preventing accidential extubation.

Changes in NHS Major Incident management and their relevance to the Defence Medical Services.

High-profile Major Incidents in the UK civilian setting in the last few years have appropriately raised awareness of the principles and frameworks involved in the design of reliable response systems. The introduction of the Joint Emergency Services Interoperability Principles in tandem with increased investment in Major Incident Planning has supported practitioners to successfully respond to high numbers of incidents.Defence Medical Services personnel are increasingly being asked to deploy to resource-limited 'contingency' settings where much of the established guidance relating to Major Incident response requires reconsideration and modification in the face of severely constrained space, manpower and equipment.This editorial seeks to review contemporary theories and principles of Major Incident response and discuss how military medical personnel may need to adapt these to address the various Major Incident challenges that they may face on operations.

Does position of the patient adversely affect successful intubation whilst wearing CBRN-PPE?

INTRODUCTION: Following a CBRN incident attending medical personnel will be required to instigate life saving airway interventions whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. CBRN-PPE is known to adversely affect fine motor skill but little is known about whether the position of the patient compounds this problem. METHODS: Seventy-five clinicians were recruited and performed intubation and insertion of a LMA in to a manikin whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. Both skills were completed twice with the manikin positioned on a bench and once on the floor. Following completion of the study 25 participants (a minimum of 2 participants from each professional group) were interviewed to ascertain their experiences. The recruitment of a non-homogenous group allowed for subgroup analysis with regards the potential impact of professional background on skill performance. RESULTS: 9.33% first attempts at intubation at waist height ended in failure but this reduced to 4% on the second attempt. This improvement was reversed with the manikin on the floor where the failure rate was 26.67%. Intubation on the floor took significantly longer to perform, being 45.9 s slower than the first attempt at intubation in the optimal position [95% CI (30.7 s, 61.1 s); p<0.001] and 62.4 s longer than the second [95% CI (48.4 s, 76.3 s); p<0.001]. LMA insertion was successful at all attempts, regardless of the manikins position. LMA placement on the floor was no slower than the second attempt at waist height (p=0.231) and faster than the first attempt at waist height (by 4.8 s [95% CI (3.4 s, 6.1 s); p<0.001]). Anaesthetists were consistently the fastest at performing all airway skills regardless of the position of the manikin but previous exposure to wearing CBRN-PPE had no statistically significant impact on skill performance. All 25 clinicians interviewed had difficulty in viewing the larynx with the manikin positioned on the floor regardless of being an experienced 'on floor' intubator with the movement of the CBRN-PPE hood being the principle reason. This is in contrast to only three participants noting issues with vision whilst standing-up. CONCLUSION: the position of the patient is likely to be an independent factor when choosing to either intubate or insert a LMA whilst wearing the current NHS CBRN-PPE.

Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills.

BACKGROUND: Following CBRN incidents health care professionals will be required to care for critically ill patients within the warm zone, prior to decontamination, whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. The loss of fine-motor skills may adversely affect delivery of medical care. METHODS: 64 clinicians were recruited to perform, intubation, LMA placement, insertion of an IV cannula and IO needle whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. A fractional factorial design was employed, in which each of the 64 clinicians had two attempts at performing each skill whilst wearing CBRN-PPE and once unsuited according to a pre-specified sequence. ANALYSIS: The unsuited and suit data were analysed independently with the primary outcome being time taken to complete each skill whilst suited. Analysis was undertaken using STATA (V9.2). RESULTS: Mean times differ considerably by skill (p<0.001). Overall, times to completion on attempt 2 were shorter than attempt 1 (p=0.045), though the reduction in time differed significantly by skill (p=0.004). LMA placement was on average completed nearly 45 s faster than intubation, and IO cannulation was nearly 90 s faster than IV cannulation. Whilst suited, 8% of intubation and 12% of intra-venous cannulation attempts were unsuccessful. Previous familiarity with CBRN-PPE did not improve performance (p=0.23). Professional groups differed significantly (p=0.009) with anaesthetists performing all skills faster than the other clinicians. CONCLUSION: This study supports the concept of instigating airway and vascular access skills whilst wearing CBRN-PPE but challenges the sole reliance on 'high-dexterity skills'. Intubation is feasible but must be considered within the context of the incident as the LMA may offer a viable alternative. Intra-venous access prior to casualty decontamination is arguably a pointless skill and should be replaced with IO access.