Introduction Prehospital emergency anaesthesia (PHEA or ‘prehospital rapid sequence intubation’) is a high-risk procedure. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) and checklists within healthcare systems have been demonstrated to reduce human error and improve patient safety. We aimed to describe the current practice of PHEA in the UK, determine the use of checklists for PHEA and describe the content, format and layout of any such checklists currently used in the UK.
Method A survey of UK prehospital teams was conducted to establish the incidence and conduct of PHEA practice. Results were grouped into systems delivering a high volume of PHEA per year (>50 PHEAs) and low volume (≤50 PHEAs per annum). Standard and ‘crash’ (immediate) induction checklists were reviewed for length, content and layout.
Results 59 UK physician-led prehospital services were identified of which 43 (74%) participated. Thirty services (70%) provide PHEA and perform approximately 1629 PHEAs annually. Ten ‘high volume’ services deliver 84% of PHEAs per year with PHEA being performed on a median of 11% of active missions. The most common indication for PHEA was trauma. 25 of the 30 services (83%) used a PHEA checklist prior to induction of anaesthesia and 24 (80%) had an SOP for the procedure. 19 (76%) of the ‘standard’ checklists and 5 (50%) of the ‘crash’ induction checklists used were analysed. On average, standard checklists contained 169 (range: 52–286) words and 41 (range: 28–70) individual checks. The style and language complexity varied significantly between different checklists.
Conclusion PHEA is now performed commonly in the UK. The use of checklists for PHEA is relatively common among prehospital systems delivering this intervention. Care must be taken to limit checklist length and to use simple, unambiguous language in order to maximise the safety of this high-risk intervention.
- prehospital care
- anaesthesia - Rsi
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Contributors MRB conceived and designed the study, devised and piloted the survey questionnaire, collected and analysed the data and wrote the manuscript. ZBP assisted with study design, the survey questionnaire and data analysis and edited the manuscript. KC and DJL assisted with data analysis and edited the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent Not required.
Ethics approval The study protocol was reviewed by the Research Ethic Committee for Queen Mary, University of London, who deemed full ethics approval to be unnecessary.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.