Institution of a difficult airway response team for emergency department patients with anticipated or encountered difficult airways: Descriptive analysis of a 5-year experience at an academic teaching hospital.

Objectives: This study aimed to describe characteristics and outcomes associated with difficult airway response team (DART) encounters in the emergency department (ED). Methods: We performed a descriptive analysis of a prospective, single-center database of DART encounters in the ED from April 1, 2016 to March 31, 2021 cross-referenced with retrospective chart review. Adult ED patients ≥18 years old for whom a DART was activated were eligible. We prospectively collected activation characteristics, intubation indications, operator characteristics, and intubation methods used for DART encounters. Retrospective chart review was conducted to obtain patient demographics and outcome variables. Descriptive analyses were computed for all outcomes. Results: We analyzed 89 DART encounters. No intubation attempts were made prior to DART activation in 52 cases (58.4%). The most common indications for intubation were angioedema (n = 17, 19.1%) or other airway obstruction (n = 15, 16.9%). A definitive airway was established by anesthesiology (n = 46, 51.7%), emergency medicine (n = 25, 28.1%), trauma surgery (n = 9, 10.1%), and ENT (n = 5, 5.6%). The most common method of intubation used to establish a definitive airway was video laryngoscopy with a bougie or D-blade (n = 29, 32.6%) followed by flexible fiberoptic intubation (n = 19, 21.3%). A surgical airway was required in eight encounters (cricothyrotomy [n = 4, 4.5%]; tracheostomy [n = 4, 4.5%]). Cases were managed in the ED (n = 73, 82%), operating room (OR) (n = 10, 11.2%), and intensive care unit (ICU) (n = 1, 1.1%). All patients requiring intubation had an endotracheal or surgical airway established. Conclusion: Our findings provide important insights regarding ED DART utilization and have implications when considering institution of a DART in the ED.

Risk and ROSC - Legal implications of bystander CPR.

BACKGROUND: Early bystander cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) has been associated with better patient outcomes in cardiac arrest. Despite this, not all cases of cardiac arrest receive bystander intervention. Reasons for this gap include disparities in provision of bystander CPR between race, gender and age groups. Concern of legal liability for responders has also been described. We propose that bystanders are more likely to face litigation for lack of intervention compared to providing bystander CPR due to the presence of 'Good Samaritan' statutes in all 50 states. This review of the legal literature seeks to quantify the number of cases brought against bystanders in the US over the past 30 years and explore the reasons behind them. METHODS: The Westlaw legal research database was searched for jury verdicts, settlements, and appellate opinions from all 50 states from 1989 to 2019 for personal injury or wrongful death lawsuits involving CPR. Of 506 cases manually reviewed by the authors, 170 were directly related to CPR. Case details including jurisdiction, location, date, plaintiff and defendant demographics, level of training of CPR provider, relationship to patient, motivation for the lawsuit, and case outcomes were recorded. RESULTS: Our data show a significant difference in the number of cases of cases alleging battery versus negligence regarding provision of CPR. Of 170 cases, 167 were due to inadequate or untimely bystander CPR. Three cases alleging harm due to providing CPR were identified. CONCLUSIONS: This study represents the largest single study of legal cases involving bystander CPR in the medical literature. The likelihood of litigation is significantly higher in cases with bystander CPR absent or delayed. The authors propose the inclusion of this data and reiteration of 'Good Samaritan' statutes in all 50 states during CPR training to reassure and encourage public response to cardiac arrests.