Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T23:57:40.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparison of Techniques for Securing the Endotracheal Tube while Wearing Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Protection: A Manikin Study

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Nick Castle ,
Robert Owen ,
Simon Clark ,
Mark Hann ,
David Reeces  and
Ian Gurney
Nick Castle*
Affiliation:
Emergency Department, Frimely Park Hospital, Camberly, Surrey, United Kingdom Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa
Robert Owen
Affiliation:
Durban University of Technology, Durban, South Africa EMS Hamad Medical Corporation, Doha, Qatar
Simon Clark
Affiliation:
Emergency Department, Frimely Park Hospital, Camberly, Surrey, United Kingdom
Mark Hann
Affiliation:
National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, United Kindgom
David Reeces
Affiliation:
National Primary Care Research and Development Centre, University of Manchester, United Kindgom
Ian Gurney
Affiliation:
Emergency Department, Frimely Park Hospital, Camberly, Surrey, United Kingdom
*
Nurse Consultant Resuscitation and Emergency Care, Emergency Department, Frimley Park HospitalPortsmouth Road, Camberley, Surrey, UK E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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

Keywords

chemicalbiologicalradiologicalor nuclearintubationpersonal protective equipment
Type
Equipment Evaluation
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 25 , Issue 6 , December 2010 , pp. 589 - 594
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Okumura, T, Takasu, N, Ishimatsu, S, et al: Report on 640 victims of the Tokyo subway sarin attack. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:129–136.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2.Lam, KK and Lau, FL: An incident of Hydrogen cyanide poisoning. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:172–175.Google Scholar
3.Stacey, R, Morfey, D, Payne, S: Secondary contamination in organophosphate poisioning: analysis of an incident. Q J Med 2004;97:75–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Nolan, JP, Deakin, CD, Soar, J, et al: European Resuscitation Council guidelines for Resuscitation 2005: Section 4. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2005;67S1:s39–s86.Google Scholar
5.Baker, DJ: Advanced life support for acute toxic injury (TOXALSTM). Eur J Emerg Med 1996;3:256–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Byers, M, Russell, R, Jockey, DJ: Clinical care in the ‘hot zone’. Emergency Medical Journal 2008;25:108–112.Google Scholar
7.Nozaki, H, Hori, S, Shinozawa, Y, et al: Secondary exposure of medical staff to sarin vapour in the emergency department. Intensive Care Med 1995;21:1032–1035.Google Scholar
8.Nakajima, T, Sato, S, Morita, H, Yanagisawa, N: Sarin poisoning of a rescue team in the Matsumoto sarin incidedent in Japan. Occup Environ Med 1997;54:697–701.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9.Geller, RJ, Singleton, KL, Drenzek, CL: Case report: Nosocomial poisoning associated with emergency department treatment of organophosphate toxicity—Georgia 2000. Clin Tox 2001;1:109–111.Google Scholar
10.Hendler, I, Nahtomi, O, Segal, E, et al: The effect of full protective gear on intubation performance by hospital medical personnel. Mil Med 2000;165:272–274.Google Scholar
11.Garner, A, Laurence, H, Lee, A: Practicality of performing medical procedures in chemical protective ensembles. Emerg Med Australas 2004;16:108–113.Google Scholar
12.Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Ben-Abraham, R, et al: Antichemical protective gear prolongs times to successful airway management. Anaesthesiology 2004;100(2):260–266.Google Scholar
13.Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Friedman, A, et al: Laryngeal mask airway insertion by anethestists and nonanethesthetists wearing unconventional protective gear. Anesthesiology 2004;100:267–273.Google Scholar
14.Suyama, J, Knutsen, CC, Northington, WE, et al: IO verses IV access while wearing personal protective equipment in a HazMat scenario. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007;11:467–472.Google Scholar
15.Carlson, J, Mayrose, J, Krause, R, Jehle, D: Extubation force: Tape versus endotracheal tube holders. Ann Emerg Med 2007;50(6):686–691.Google Scholar
16.Brinker, A, Gray, SA, Schumacher, J: Influence of air-purifying respirators on the simulated first response emergency treatment of CBRN victims. Resuscitation 2007;74:310–316.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17.Ben-Abraham, R, Gur, Llan, Vater, Y, Weinbroum, AA: Intraosseous emergency access by physicians wearing protective gear. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:(12):1407–1410.Google Scholar
18.Berkenstadt, H, Arad, M, Nahtomi, O, Atsmon, J: The effect of a chemical protective ensemble on intravenous line insertion by emergency medical technicians. Mil Med 1999;164:737–739.Google Scholar
19.Kales, SN, Christiani, DC: Acute chemical emergencies. N Engl J Med 2004;350:800–808.Google Scholar
20.Ben-Abraham, R, Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, et al: Cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) placement is delayed by wearing anti-chemical protective clothing. EMJ 2008;25:847–850.Google Scholar
21.Krueger, G: Psychological and performance effects of chemical biological protective clothing and equipment. Mil Med 2001;166(suppl 2):41–43.Google Scholar
22.Boulain, T: Unplanned extubation in the adult intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:1131–1137.Google Scholar
23.MacDonald, RD, LeBlanc, V, McAurthur, B, Durbrowski, A: Performance of resuscitation skills by paramedic personnel in chemical protective suits. Prehos Emerg Care 2006;10:254–259.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
24.Owen, R, Castle, N, Hann, H, et al: Extubation force: A comparison of adhesive, non-adhesive tape and a commercial endotracheal tube holder. Resuscitation 2009;80:1296–1300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar