Article Text
PDF
Abstract
Background Airway management checklists have improved paediatric patient safety in some clinical settings, but consensus on the appropriate components to include on a checklist for paediatric tracheal intubation in the ED is lacking.
Methods A multidisciplinary panel of 14 experts in airway management within and outside of paediatric emergency medicine participated in a modified Delphi approach to develop consensus on the appropriate components for a paediatric airway management checklist for the ED. Panel members reviewed, modified and added to the components from the National Emergency Airway Registry for Children airway safety checklist for paediatric intensive care units using a 9-point appropriateness scale. Components with a median score of 7.0–9.0 and a 25th percentile score ≥7.0 achieved consensus for inclusion. A priori, the modified Delphi method was limited to a maximum of two rounds for consensus on essential components and one additional round for checklist creation.
Results All experts participated in both rounds. Consensus was achieved on 22 components. Twelve were original candidate items and 10 were newly suggested or modified items. Consensus components included the following categories: patient assessment and plan (5 items), patient preparation (5 items), pharmacy (2 items), equipment (7 items) and personnel (3 items). The components were formatted into a 17-item clinically usable checklist.
Conclusions Using the modified Delphi method, consensus was established among airway management experts around essential components for an airway management checklist intended for paediatric tracheal intubation in the ED.
- airway
- pediatric emergency medicine
- quality improvement
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Data availability statement
All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.
Footnotes
Handling editor Shammi L Ramlakhan
Twitter @millerkelseyann
Contributors KAM conceptualised and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, recruited experts, collected data, carried out the initial analyses, drafted the initial manuscript and reviewed and revised the manuscript. JN conceptualised and designed the study, designed the data collection instruments, assisted with expert recruitment and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. AN designed the data collection instruments, assisted with expert recruitment and critically reviewed the manuscript for important intellectual content. MP, RW, MPG and LAP designed the data collection instruments, assisted with expert recruitment and reviewed and revised the manuscript. KAM is guarantor.
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 and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.
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.