Introduction Advanced airway management is necessary in the prehospital environment and difficult airways occur more commonly in this setting. Failed intubation is closely associated with the most devastating complications of airway management. In an attempt to improve the safety and success of tracheal intubation, we implemented videolaryngoscopy (VL) as our first-line device for tracheal intubation within a UK prehospital emergency medicine (PHEM) setting.
Methods An East of England physician–paramedic PHEM team adopted VL as first line for undertaking all prehospital advanced airway management. The study period was 2016–2020. Statistical process control charts were used to assess whether use of VL altered first-pass intubation success, frequency of intubation-related hypoxia and laryngeal inlet views. A survey was used to collect the team’s views of VL introduction.
Results 919 patients underwent advanced airway management during the study period. The introduction of VL did not improve first-pass intubation success, view of laryngeal inlet or intubation-associated hypoxia. VL improved situational awareness and opportunities for training but performed poorly in some environments.
Conclusion Despite the lack of objective improvement in care, subjective improvements meant that overall PHEM clinicians wanted to retain VL within their practice.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Handling editor Caroline Leech
Contributors All authors assisted with the project and in preparation of 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.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.