Open Access

A consensus-based template for uniform reporting of data from pre-hospital advanced airway management

  • Stephen JM Sollid1, 2Email author,
  • David Lockey3,
  • Hans Morten Lossius1, 4 and
  • Pre-hospital advanced airway management expert group
Scandinavian Journal of Trauma, Resuscitation and Emergency Medicine200917:58

https://doi.org/10.1186/1757-7241-17-58

Received: 21 September 2009

Accepted: 20 November 2009

Published: 20 November 2009

Abstract

Background

Advanced airway management is a critical intervention that can harm the patient if performed poorly. The available literature on this subject is rich, but it is difficult to interpret due to a huge variability and poor definitions. Several initiatives from large organisations concerned with airway management have recently propagated the need for guidelines and standards in pre-hospital airway management. Following the path of other initiatives to establish templates for uniform data reporting, like the many Utstein-style templates, we initiated and carried out a structured consensus process with international experts to establish a set of core data points to be documented and reported in cases of advanced pre-hospital airway management.

Methods

A four-step modified nominal group technique process was employed.

Results

The inclusion criterion for the template was defined as any patient for whom the insertion of an advanced airway device or ventilation was attempted. The data points were divided into three groups based on their relationship to the intervention, including system-, patient-, and post-intervention variables, and the expert group agreed on a total of 23 core data points. Additionally, the group defined 19 optional variables for which a consensus could not be achieved or the data were considered as valuable but not essential.

Conclusion

We successfully developed an Utstein-style template for documenting and reporting pre-hospital airway management. The core dataset for this template should be included in future studies on pre-hospital airway management to produce comparable data across systems and patient populations and will be implemented in systems that are influenced by the expert panel.

Background

Advanced airway management is a critical intervention that is carried out regularly on the most severely ill or injured patients in the pre-hospital setting. Evidence for its benefit is scarce and of poor quality [1, 2], but it is generally accepted that securing a compromised airway in critically ill patients as early as possible is of the highest priority [3]. It has also been established that, when performed poorly, pre-hospital airway management is hazardous and can worsen the outcome [47]. Studies on this subject are difficult to interpret because of the huge variability and poor definition of operator experience, technique, and patient case mix [1]. Most published studies that have influenced practice are from pre-hospital systems in North America, where paramedics and nurses usually manage the airway of patients. In Europe, many Emergency Medical Service (EMS) systems are physician-manned, and some studies suggest that this setup is a significant factor in safe and successful pre-hospital airway management [8, 9]. There are certainly several key studies that seriously question the safety of paramedic advanced airway management in US systems [4, 5, 10, 11].

A recent initiative from the Scandinavian Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive care (SSAI) to define a standard for pre-hospital airway management [12] and the recently published guidelines on pre-hospital anaesthesia from The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) [13] suggest that there is a demand for guidelines in pre-hospital airway management. There also seems to be a need for standardisation of training and maintenance of critical skills like advanced airway management in established physician-manned pre-hospital systems [14]. A position paper from the National Association of EMS Physicians (NAEMSP) also called for better training in airway management for pre-hospital personnel and a standardisation of protocols [15]. The same organisation has issued recommended guidelines for the reporting of data from pre-hospital airway management within the US system [16]. Implementation of new guidelines or curricula should be accompanied by a quality assessment of the implementation to answer the question of whether the new guidelines or curriculum changes result in better practice.

Recently, a revised Utstein-style template for the uniform reporting of data following a major trauma was published to simplify the comparison of data from different trauma registries [17]. We believe that a similar template for the uniform reporting of data related to pre-hospital airway management will help us to better compare the data and evaluate the implementation of new guidelines or methods. Such a template would allow pre-hospital organisations with different infrastructures to contribute information to the literature, which could then be easily interpreted. It would also allow for the collaboration of key pre-hospital organisations in different countries and systems to produce good quality uniform data and publications on specific areas of pre-hospital airway practice, particularly relating to patient safety and the reduction of adverse incidents. We therefore think that such a template needs to be based on a consensus process supported by a geographically dispersed group of experts. Such a consensus-based template would also be a natural advancement of similar templates developed by national interest organisations [16]. We believe that such a project has the potential to contribute to all elements of the Theoretical Model of Factors in Patient Outcome published by the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation, the so-called Utstein formula of survival [18].

It has therefore been our goal to initiate and carry out a structured consensus process with invited international experts to establish a set of core data points to be documented and reported in cases of advanced pre-hospital airway management.

Methods

The template was developed using a four-step, modified nominal group technique (NGT) [19, 20].

The expert panel

We invited physicians from Europe and North America who have contributed substantially to research, the development of guidelines and/or are considered experts in the field of pre-hospital airway. The panel consisted of clinicians, most of who are, or have been, directly involved in pre-hospital care.

Data point definitions

The data variables need to be clearly defined to prevent misinterpretation. They should also be simple to register and integrate into existing activity registries. A data variable dictionary should contain information on the "data point number", "data point name", "descriptive field name", "type of data", "data point category/value", "definition of data point", "source of data information", and "coding guidance" [17]. The definitions used in the template are adapted to and, in some cases, based on the Utstein template for the uniform reporting of data following major trauma [17] and the recommended guidelines for reporting on emergency medical dispatch when conducting research in emergency medicine [21].

Core data variables

As with previous Utstein-style templates [17, 21], we differentiated between core and optional data variables. We chose to focus on the core data variables, i.e., those data variables that absolutely must be collected. These variables were divided into three groups based on their relationship to the intervention advanced airway management: "system variables", "patient variables", and "post-intervention variables".

System variables

The system variables describe the system in which the advanced airway management is performed, meaning the specific characteristics of the pre-hospital EMS in which the procedure is performed. Large differences exist between EMS systems not only globally, but also in relatively homogenous areas like Scandinavia [22]. The system variables should therefore indicate the key differences and allow for a comparison of the effect of a system structure on outcome.

Patient variables

Patient variables should describe the patients' conditions before the intervention, specifically physiological variables or scoring systems that describe co-morbidity, severity of injury or illness, or other factors that may influence patient outcome.

Post-intervention variables

The post-intervention variables should describe the interventions or care process related to advanced airway management. These variables covers the success or fault indicators related to the procedure, the intervention description, and patient variables that can be influenced by the care process.

Specific data issues

Many EMS systems have trouble obtaining in-hospital data to complete follow-up or quality assurance of pre-hospital treatment, e.g., mortality data, on patients treated in the pre-hospital phase. This is often due to medico-legal or data security issues, and the patient is often "lost to follow up" as soon as the EMS personnel hand over responsibility for the patient to the hospital. Furthermore, most EMS systems feed into several different hospital systems, and follow-up is therefore logistically difficult. The expert group therefore chose to focus on variables that can be collected directly from the EMS patient contact without reliance on in-hospital data. However, the expert panel recommended that EMS systems establish methods to track the course of the patient after pre-hospital treatment.

Many system variables are fixed for a particular EMS system and do not change between patients; they can be regarded as fixed within the system. The expert panels therefore suggested that these key variables be reported at regular intervals or when they are changed, but not for each patient. These variables are not included in the core system variables but are described separately.

The nominal group technique

The modified NGT process consisted of four steps. In the first round, the experts were supplied with the necessary background data:
  • Unpublished literature review of pre-hospital airway management and outcome by one of the authors (SS)

  • Recent guidelines from SSAI on pre-hospital airway management [12]

Further, they were asked to return proposals for a maximum of 15 core data variables and, in addition, optional data variables regarded as important. This first proposal was summarised and structured by the coordinators (SS, HML, DL), and the collated results were redistributed in the second round for additional comments and re-prioritisation. In the third round, a consensus meeting was held during which the expert panel first discussed and agreed on the inclusion criteria and then discussed their views on the data variables in a structured manner and finally agreed. In the fourth round, the expert panels were invited to comment on the conclusion by e-mail. Finally, all experts signed a letter of consent.

Results

The expert panel agreed that any patient receiving advanced airway management, defined as the attempted insertion of an advanced airway adjunct or administration of ventilatory assistance, should meet inclusion criteria. Further, the expert panel agreed that advanced airway management during inter-hospital transfer should be excluded. In total, the expert panel agreed on 23 core data variables (Tables 1, 2, and 3).
Table 1

Core system variables

Data variable number

Data variable name

Type of data

Data variable categories or values

Definition of data variable

1

Highest Level of EMS provider on scene

Ordinal

1 = EMS non-Paramedic

2 = EMS-Paramedic

3 = Nurse

4 = Physician

5 = Unknown

Highest level of EMS provider on scene, excluding any non-EMS

personnel (bystanders, family, etc)

2

Airway devices available on scene

Nominal

1 = Bag Mask Ventilation

2 = SAD

3 = ETT

4 = Surgical airway

5 = None

6 = Unknown

Airway devices available on scene and provider on-scene who

knows how to use it (select all that apply)

3

Drugs for airway management available on scene

Nominal

1 = Sedatives

2 = NMBA

3 = Analgesics/opioids

4 = Local/topic anaesthetic

5 = None

Drugs used for airway management, available on scene and

someone competent to administer them (select all that apply)

4

Main type of transportation

Nominal

1 = Ground ambulance

2 = Helicopter ambulance

3 = Fixed-wing ambulance

4 = Private or public vehicle

5 = Walk-in

6 = Police

7 = Other

8 = Not transported

9 = Unknown

Main type of transportation vehicle (if multiple selected, vehicle

used for the majority of the transportation phase)

5

Response time

Continuous

Minutes

Time from when the Emergency Medical Communication Centre

operator initiates transmission of the dispatch message to the first

resource/unit time of arrival on the scene of the first unit, as

reported by the first unit

EMS: Emergency Medical Service

ETT: Endotracheal tube

NMBA: Neuromuscular blocking agent

SAD: Supraglottic airway device

Table 2

Core patient variables

Data variable number

Data variable name

Type of data

Data variable categories or values

Definition of data variable

6

Co-morbidity

Ordinal

1 = No (ASA-PS = 1)

2 = Yes (ASA-PS = 2-6)

3 = Unknown

ASA-PS definition

1 = A normal healthy patient

2 = A patient with mild systemic disease

3 = A patient with severe systemic disease

4 = A patient with severe systemic disease that is a constant threat to life

5 = A moribund patient who is not expected to survive without the operation

6 = A declared brain-dead patient whose organs are being removed for donor purposes

7

Age

Continuous

YY or MM

Years rounded down. Ages under 1 year are reported in decimals (e.g., 6 month = 0.5 year)

8

Gender

Nominal

1 = Female

2 = Male

3 = Unknown

Patient gender

9

Patient category

Nominal

1 = Blunt trauma (incl. burns and strangulation)

2 = Penetrating trauma

3 = Non trauma (incl. drowning and asphyxia)

4 = Unknown

Dominating reason for emergency treatment

10

Indication for airway intervention

Nominal

1 = Decreased level of consciousness

2 = Hypoxemia

3 = Ineffective ventilation

4 = Existing airway obstruction

5 = Impending airway obstruction

6 = Combative or uncooperative

7 = Relief of pain or distress

8 = Cardiopulmonary arrest

9 = Other, specify

Dominating indication for airway intervention

11

Respiratory rate, initial

Continuous

Number/

Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS provider on scene

12a

Systolic blood pressure, initial

Continuous

Number/

Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS provider on scene

13a

Heart rate, initial

Continuous

Number/

Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS provider on scene

14

GCS, initial (m/v/e)

Ordinal

Motor 1-6

Verbal 1-5

Eyes 1-4

Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS provider on scene

See also GCS definitions

15a

SpO2, initial; state: with or without supplemental O2

Continuous and nominal

Number/Not recorded

1 = Without supplemental O2

2 = With supplemental O2

3 = Unknown if supplemental O2

First value recorded by the EMS provider on scene

ASA-PS: American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status

EMS: Emergency Medical Service

GCS: Glasgow Coma Score

Table 3

Core post-intervention variables

Data variable number

Data variable name

Type of data

Data variable categories or values

Definition of data variable

16

Post-intervention ventilation

Nominal

1 = Spontaneous

2 = Controlled

3 = Mixed

4 = Unknown

How is patient ventilated following

airway management? If both

spontaneous and controlled, choose

mixed.

12b

Post-intervention systolic blood pressure (SBP)

Continuous

Number/Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS

provider after finalised airway

management

15b

Post-intervention SpO2

Continuous

Number/Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS

provider after finalised airway

management

17a

Post-intervention EtCO2

Continuous

Number/Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS

provider after finalised airway

management

12c

Post-intervention SBP on arrival

Continuous

Number/Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS

provider after patient arrives at

hospital

13b

Post intervention heart rate

Continuous

Number/Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS

provider after finalised airway

management

15c

Post-intervention SpO2 on arrival

Continuous

Number/Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS

provider after patient arrives at

hospital

17b

Post-intervention EtCO2 on arrival

Continuous

Number/Not recorded

First value recorded by the EMS

provider after patient arrives at

hospital

18

Survival status

Nominal

1 = Dead on-scene or on arrival

2 = Alive on hospital arrival

3 = Unknown

Patient survival status: EMS

treatment and on arrival at hospital

19

Attempts at airway intervention

Nominal

1 = One attempt

2 = Multiple attempts by one provider

3 = Multiple attempts by two or more providers

4 = Unknown

Number of attempts at securing the

airway with a supraglottic airway

device (SAD) or tracheal intubation

(TI).

20

Complications

Nominal

1 = ETT misplaced in oesophagus

2 = ETT misplaced in right mainstem bronchus

3 = Teeth trauma

4 = Vomiting and/or aspiration

5 = Hypoxia

6 = Bradycardia

7 = Hypotension

8 = Other, define

9 = None recorded

Problems and mechanical

complications recognised on scene

and caused by airway management.

Physiologic complications (5, 6, and 7)

are regarded as such if they were not

present before airway intervention

and were recorded during or

immediately after airway

management. The following

definitions are used:

hypoxia: SpO2 < 90%

bradycardia: pulse rate <60 bpm

hypotension: SBP < 90

21

Drugs used to facilitate

airway procedure

Nominal

1 = Sedatives

2 = NMBA

3 = Analgesics/opioids

4 = Local/topic anaesthetic

5 = None

Drugs used to facilitate the airway

intervention. Select all that apply

22

Intubation success

Nominal

1 = Success on first attempt

2 = Success after more than one attempt and one rescuer

3 = Success after more than one attempt and multiple rescuers

3 = Not successful

Successful intubation defined as tube

verified in the trachea.

An intubation attempt is defined as

attempted laryngoscopy with the

intent to intubate

23

Device used in successful airway management

Nominal

1 = Bag Mask Ventilation

2 = SAD

3 = Oral TI

4 = Nasal TI

5 = Surgical airway

6 = None

7 = Unknown

Device used to manage successful

airway or device in place when

patient is delivered at hospital/ED

ED: Emergency Department

EMS: Emergency Medical Service

ETT: Endotracheal Tube

NMBA: Neuro Muscular Blocking Agent

Discussion on inclusion/exclusion criteria and core data variables

Inclusion criteria

The template should include all cases of advanced pre-hospital airway management, but the definition of this term is poorly defined. The focus of pre-hospital airway management has traditionally been on tracheal intubation (TI), but supraglottic airway devices (SAD) are increasingly popular in pre-hospital airway management [12]. In the opinion of the expert group, any airway management beyond manual opening of the airway and the use of simple adjuncts, such as a Guedel airway, should be considered as advanced airway management. This includes the use of SAD, tracheal tubes, and surgical airway techniques. In addition, the expert panel agreed that patients in need of ventilatory support generally require advanced airway management and should therefore also be included.

Exclusion criteria

The expert panel decided that the template should focus on patients treated during so-called primary missions, defined as missions where the patient is located outside a hospital with emergency care capabilities. In secondary missions, or inter-hospital transfers, patients are often already intubated and on ventilatory support, and airway management is rarely required. In the opinion of the expert panel, these secondary transfer cases probably require a different set of variables to properly describe them and are beyond the scope of this template.

Fixed system variables

This group of variables are regarded as fixed within the system and do not change between patients. These variables are meant to provide a picture of the population and area covered by the EMS system, but also provide some information on how the EMS system is organised (Table 4). The variables need only be documented and reported once and revised if changes occur.
Table 4

Fixed system variables

Data variable number

Data variable name

Type of data

Data variable categories or values

Definition of data variable

1

Population

Continuous

Number

Population count in the primary response area of the EMS

2

Area

Continuous

Number

Area in sq km or sq miles of primary response area of the EMS

3

Rural, urban, split

Nominal

1 = Urban

2 = Rural

3 = Split

Urban area defined as: "De facto population living in areas classified as urban according to the criteria used by each

area or country. Data refer to 1 July of the year indicated and are presented in thousands". Rural area defined as: "De

facto population living in areas classified as rural. Data refer to 1 July of the year indicated and are presented in

thousands".

4

Usual tiered response

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly

5

Time intervals collected

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly

6

Service mission types

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly; e.g., mainly trauma or mixed patient population

7

Times available

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly

8

Established airway

management protocols

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly

9

Airway management

techniques available

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly

10

Describe type of

training in airway

management

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly

11

Type of tracheal tube

confirmation technique

Nominal

1 = Auscultation

2 = Colorimetry

3 = Capnometry

4 = Capnography

5 = none

 

12

Type of available

ventilator

Free text

Free text

Describe briefly

EMS: Emergency Medical Service

System variables

Much of the discussion regarding pre-hospital airway management revolves around who should perform the procedures [9], and recent guidelines from Scandinavia have taken a stand in the discussion [12]. The expert panel therefore agreed that it was important to include the level of the EMS provider involved in the airway management as a core variable to document the influence of the providers level on patient outcome. The provider with the highest practical competence level is recorded rather than the provider who actually performed the procedure. In the majority of cases, this is likely the same person. When this is not the case, the panel determined it most likely that the provider with the highest competence takes responsibility for the procedure whether they actually performed it or not. Supervision seems to increase the success rate of airway management [23].

Some studies suggest that the use of devices other than the tracheal tube (TT), e.g., SADs, can improve survival [24, 25]. SADs are also important rescue devices when TI fails [12, 26]. These devices can only be used when they are available on scene; therefore, it was agreed that the availability of devices also must be recorded (this may be a 'fixed data point' in many systems). Documenting this would also explain why, for example, in a system that is not set up for TI, a TT was not chosen as the final airway.

The use of drugs to facilitate airway management has also been debated. There is good evidence that the success rate of TI is dependent on the use of sedatives and neuromuscular blockers [27, 28]. Drugs are sometimes also necessary to facilitate insertion of SADs. Since the availability of drugs is a key factor in the success of airway management, the panel agreed that this is a core variable.

There may be a relationship between the mode of transport from the scene and survival in the case of trauma patients. Some studies report an improved survival rate in trauma patients transported by helicopter compared with those transported by ground [29, 30]. Others have demonstrated that transport by lay persons increases survival [31]. To what extent the transport mode influences survival in relation to pre-hospital airway management is unclear, but it might influence airway management procedures performed during transport. Because of this, the expert panel found that the main type of transport should be included as a core variable.

Shy et al. demonstrated that survival following cardiac arrest improves when the time from patient collapse to intubation is shortened [32]. It therefore seems mandatory that this time interval be recorded in the template. However, the reported times of patient collapse are often unreliable and would produce unreliable data. The panel agreed that the closest alternative would be to record response time. Studies have shown that survival improves with shorter response times [33], and the time interval is also a core variable in the Utstein template for dispatch [21].

Patient variables

Co-morbidity represents an independent predictor of mortality after trauma [3436] and is also useful in critically ill patients [37]. The recent update of the Utstein template for uniform reporting of data following trauma (Utstein trauma template) [17] recommended the use of the American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA-PS) classification system [38]. In trauma patients, ASA-PS is shown to be a strong predictor of outcome [39]. Although this system is specifically designed for recording pre-existing co-morbidity in pre-operative patients, it is easily understood and simple to use. Using similar logic [17, 39], the expert panel found this scoring system appropriate for classifying co-morbidity in those patients receiving pre-hospital airway management. However, the panel recognised that the ASA-PS is unfamiliar in most pre-hospital systems and therefore recommended that only the co-morbidity categories of "no" (= ASA-PS 1), "yes" (= ASA-PS 2-6), or "unknown" be recorded as core variables. At the same time, the panel strongly recommended that the individual ASA-PS scores be recorded at least as optional data variables as soon as the ASA-PS score becomes familiar to the system. The panel also found it necessary to emphasise that the ASA-PS classification system only be used to categorise a co-morbidity that exists before the current incident [39].

Age has been shown to be an independent predictor of survival after trauma [34, 40] and is an essential variable for predicting hospital mortality in critically ill patients [41]. Following the argument of the Utstein trauma template [17], the expert panel recommended that the patients' nominal age be reported as a continuous variable that is rounded down and that age under 1 year be reported in decimals. This technique is in accordance with the Utstein trauma template [17] and simplifies data handling in electronic databases, although it requires the users to translate a 12-month interval into decimals.

To the knowledge of the expert group, no studies have shown any association between gender and airway management outcome or complications. Gender is disputed as a predictor for outcome in critically ill or injured patients; some have found associations between age, gender, and outcome in trauma populations [35, 42, 43]. The panel however acknowledged that gender is universally reported as part of the standard population data and agreed that it should be included as a core variable.

Most studies on outcome following pre-hospital airway management are based on trauma patient populations [1]. The intention of the current template is, however, to include all patient groups receiving airway management in the pre-hospital scene because non-trauma patients make up a large proportion of the patients receiving pre-hospital airway management in many European EMS systems. Little data are available addressing the effect of pre-hospital TI on survival in non-trauma populations [1]. The expert panel, therefore, recommended that patients must be identified as trauma or non-trauma to allow this question to be explored. To avoid the misinterpretation of certain special cases, the panel decided to include burns and strangulation in the blunt trauma group and drowning and asphyxia in the non-trauma group.

The indications for airway management and especially TI have been classified into three groups: failure of airway maintenance or protection, failure of ventilation or oxygenation, and expected clinical course (that will require early intubation) [44]. Other more specific indications are established in some EMS services [45]. Still, the literature offers little support that pre-hospital airway management improves survival [1]. The expert panel, therefore, found it critically important that the template include the indication for airway intervention in the core variables and suggested a list of nine categories. This variable can hopefully provide better insight into which conditions benefit from pre-hospital airway management.

The expert panel found it most appropriate to record actual values (continuous data) of all physiological variables chosen for the core dataset. Since the focus is not only trauma patients, it would be inappropriate to record, for example, only the revised trauma score [46] (RTS) when the recording of raw data can be easily translated into the appropriate categories for different scoring systems or prediction models. Furthermore, in the case of airway management, many physiological variables represent the indications for airway intervention and markers of success or complications following intervention [47].

The panel recommended recording initial pre-intervention values (first EMS contact with patient) for systolic blood pressure (SBP), respiratory rate (RR), GCS, heart rate (HR), and SpO2.

RR, SBP, and GCS are core elements of the RTS, which has been used for many years to predict the outcome of trauma patients. The use of these variables to predict outcome in pre-hospital, non-trauma populations has not been studied to our knowledge; therefore, it is important to include them in this template for the future exploration of their predictive power in mixed populations. In the recently published Utstein trauma template [17], all of these variables are included as core variables and are also reported as actual values. RR is a well-recognised indicator of respiratory distress and may predict the need for airway intervention and ventilatory support. Pre-hospital SBP is a good predictor of severe injury [48], and although it is not a direct indicator for the need to manage the airway, changes after airway intervention may indicate cardiovascular complications. Recording of both pre- and post-intervention SBP therefore seems warranted. The same argument is valid for recording both pre- and post-intervention HR; changes in HR, e.g., bradycardia, can signal cardiovascular complications or be associated with desaturation following airway management [4, 49] and should therefore be recorded before and after the intervention.

The pre-hospital GCS is a strong predictor of outcome in patients with traumatic brain injury [50]. Many regard GCS scores below 9 as an indication for intubation [51, 52], but patients with traumatic brain injury and higher scores may also require intubation [45]. The panel therefore found the recording of pre-intervention GCS to be essential.

Davis et al. [53] have shown that intubation at SpO2 values below 93% causes a higher incidence of subsequent desaturation and that severe hypoxia during TI is associated with increased mortality [54]. Others have also documented that hypoxia is one of the more common complications following pre-hospital TI [4, 49] and that it is useful to document SpO2 during pre-hospital TI [55]. The panel recommended that the initial pre-intervention SpO2 be recorded and that it is also recorded whether the patient was receiving supplemental O2 or not.

Post-intervention variables

Poorly controlled ventilation following TI in patients with traumatic brain injury may worsen outcome [54, 56, 57]. There is currently little data available documenting the same effect in mixed pre-hospital trauma or non-trauma cases. Continuous monitoring of end tidal CO2 reduces the risk of inadvertent hyperventilation [58] and should therefore be applied in all intubated and ventilated patients pre-hospital [12]. End tidal CO2 monitoring is also mandatory to confirm successful TI [12, 13]. The expert panel therefore recommended that the type of post-intervention ventilation be recorded and that end tidal CO2 values immediately after the airway intervention and on arrival in hospital be recorded as core variables.

As discussed above, SBP and SpO2 should be recorded pre-intervention. Both variables may also signify post-intervention complications [4, 49, 54] and should therefore be recorded after airway management. The panel recommended that both variables also be recorded immediately after arrival in the hospital to avoid the potential problems associated with acquiring in-hospital data.

The expert panel recommended that pre-hospital survival be the primary outcome measure for pre-hospital airway management. Many studies on pre-hospital intervention suffer from the lack of good survival data beyond the pre-hospital phase, usually as a consequence of strict rules restricting access to confidential in-hospital patient data. A recent study by Wang et al. [59] on outcome after pre-hospital intubation errors presents a novel way to link pre-hospital data with anonymous in-hospital data, but, at the same time, it illustrates the difficulty associated with achieving good survival data. The panel recommended that only survival data available from the pre-hospital phase be recorded as core data, with the variables of dead or alive on arrival at the hospital or dead on scene. Mandatory recording of in-hospital or 30-day mortality will inevitably result in some pre-hospital systems being unable to record the dataset. In systems where survival data are available, the panels recommended that 30-day survival status be collected as an optional data point [39].

Data show that multiple TI attempts are associated with a higher rate of airway-related complications [49, 60]. The same may be true for SADs, and the recent SSAI guidelines recommend a maximum of three attempts of SAD insertion [12]. The panel, therefore, recommended that the total number of attempts of airway intervention be recorded, including TI and SAD attempts. To record attempts at TI specifically, the panel decided to add the data variable "intubation success", which records if TI was successful on the first attempt or after more than one attempt and if more than one rescuer was involved. In a study including 2,833 patients that received in-hospital emergency TIs outside the operating room, Mort [49] showed a significant increase in airway-related complications with three or more TI attempts. The panel agreed that it was sufficient to distinguish between one or more than one attempt in the data variable.

Complications related to airway management are probably more common in the pre-hospital setting than the in-hospital setting due to environmental, patient, and system factors [61]. One of the most severe complications reported is oesophageal misplacement of the TT [7, 11, 62], often with a fatal outcome. Other complications, like right mainstem TT misplacement, desaturation, regurgitation, and cardiovascular events, have also been reported [4, 7, 49] and can lead to increased morbidity or mortality [54]. The expert panel recommended that complications or problems related to airway management that are recognised during the pre-hospital phase be recorded as core variables. The panel has suggested seven variable categories, allowing for further categories to be defined.

The use of sedatives and neuromuscular blockers is shown to improve the success rate of pre-hospital TI [12, 27, 61, 63]. The recent SSAI guidelines recommend the use of sedatives and neuromuscular blockers to facilitate ETI success [12]. Using SADs in patients with intact airway reflexes may also require sedation of the patient to some degree, although there is no data supporting this in the pre-hospital arena. The expert panel recommended that the use of drugs to facilitate airway management, including for the insertion of SADs, be recorded as a core variable.

Finally, the expert panel recommended the documentation of the type of device used to successfully manage the airway, meaning the device in place when the airway is regarded as successfully managed outside the hospital or the device in place on arrival at the hospital.

General discussion

In the present paper, we present a newly developed Utstein-style template for documenting and reporting pre-hospital airway management. The expert panel reached a consensus on 23 core data variables (Tables 1, 2, and 3) that should be documented by any EMS service providing airway management in the pre-hospital setting. In addition, a set of 19 optional data variables (Additional File 1) has been discussed by the expert panel and is included in the template.

The template includes all cases of airway management where any advanced technique beyond manual airway opening and bag mask ventilation (BMV) is attempted. Further, the template includes all patient categories treated pre-hospital, not only trauma patients. These two premises are important. The increasing use of SADs in pre-hospital airway management makes it necessary to also document their use. Currently, the use of such devices pre-hospital and the impact on patient outcome are probably even less well documented than those for TI [12]. In many EMS systems, a significant proportion of the patients treated are non-trauma. Although the focus of most studies on pre-hospital airway management have been on trauma populations, a recent study from Norway showed that as many as one third of all TIs are performed on non-trauma cases, not including TI in patients with cardiac arrest (Nakstad et al. - unpublished, in review). In Adnet et al.'s data from France, more than 90% of the patients were non-trauma, when excluding those with cardiac arrest [8]. Pre-hospital airway management in these patient groups is not well documented, except in cases of cardiac arrest, where TI is not shown to influence survival according to a recent Cochrane review [1]. This review did not include the study by Shy et al. [32] mentioned above, which showed that the time to TI does impact survival. Inclusion of the entire population receiving airway management pre-hospital will hopefully provide a better understanding of the potential benefit to different patient categories.

The 19 optional data variables (Table 3) included in the template consist of variables for which the expert panel could not agree whether they should be included in the core variable set or for which the panel found that they were of such a nature that not all EMS systems would be able to document them.

In the system group, the panel agreed that the airway management experience of the provider should ideally be documented, but they could not agree on how this should be achieved. One suggestion was to indicate how many intubations the provider has performed in total, but this was felt to be a likely cause of unreliable and biased data. There are data to support that a learning curve exists for TI [64], but no studies have been performed to document this assertion in the pre-hospital arena. The suggestion to record airway management experience to record towas, however, left as an optional variable with a recommendation to document it in the systems.

The expert panel discussed the recording and documenting of the actual time of events during pre-hospital treatment. Scene times have been shown to influence survival in some studies [65, 66], but there are many factors involved, and the importance of scene time vs. advanced treatment in critically ill patients remains unclear [67]. Transport times have, however, been found to influence patient outcome [29]. The panel, therefore, agreed that time events should be recorded to allow time intervals to be calculated, but recognised that it is difficult to include these as core variables at the time because differences between systems impact how time events are defined and recorded. Time events were, therefore, included in the list of optional variables.

A high body mass index seems to be related to a higher incidence of complications in airway management [68]. The recording of weight and height were, therefore, discussed, although the panel concluded that the exact documentation of these parameters is difficult in the pre-hospital phase. The variables were, however, included as optional for systems that have reliable means of recording these parameters.

Physiological variables were included in the core dataset, but a more extensive set of physiological variables was also discussed. Inclusion of a large set of variables to be recorded in the core dataset could, however, discourage users; therefore, only a limited number of variables were chosen, as discussed above. A set of optional variables was suggested for systems possessing the means to record physiological parameters more extensively and reliably.

The composition of the core and optional data points was necessarily controversial. The dataset produced was a compromise between what should be collected and what is currently practical for pre-hospital systems to collect. The entire panel agreed, for example, that in-hospital outcome data are vital information, but also recognised that including this kind of data in the template as mandatory would considerably reduce the potential use of the template. In subsequent revisions of the template, all of this data may become accessible and recordable.

Implementing an Utstein-style template is always challenging. In the case of this template, all members of the expert panel signed a letter of intention in which they agreed to recommend and work for the implementation of the core template in their systems. The experiences from these systems will form the basis of a second meeting of all experts in two years to revise the template according to experiences obtained with the first template and to additional new research. This planned revision should, however, not prevent other systems from implementing the current template. The full template with core variable definitions will therefore be available free of charge per the request of the corresponding author.

Conclusion

We have successfully developed an Utstein-style template for documenting and reporting pre-hospital airway management. The core dataset of this template should be included in future studies on pre-hospital airway management to produce comparable data across systems and patient populations. The template will be implemented in systems influenced by the expert panel. Following a two-year period, the experiences from these systems will form the basis of a revision.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The members of the "Pre-hospital advanced airway management expert panel" were as follows: Stefano Di Bartolomeo (Italy), Alexei Boikov (Russia), Maaret Castrén (Sweden), Erika F. Christensen (Denmark), Daniel Davis (USA), Gareth Davis (UK), Per Kristian Hyldmo (Norway), Jouni Kurola (Finland), Poul Kongstad (Sweden), Søren Mikkelsen (Denmark), Anders R Nakstad (Norway), Tom Silfvast (Finland), Arnd Timmerman (Germany), Wolfgang Ummerhofer (Switzerland), and Wolfgang Voelckel (Austria).

The consensus process was funded by the Laerdal Foundation for Acute Medicine, Stavanger, and The Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation, Drøbak, Norway. The sponsors did not influence the final decision to submit the manuscript for publication, nor did they have any role in the writing process other than facilitating the meetings.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Research and Development, Norwegian Air Ambulance Foundation
(2)
Air Ambulance Department, Oslo University Hospital
(3)
London HEMS, The Royal London Hospital
(4)
Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Bergen

References

  1. Lecky F, Bryden D, Little R, Tong N, Moulton C: Emergency intubation for acutely ill and injured patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008, CD001429-Google Scholar
  2. Dunham CM, Barraco RD, Clark DE, Daley BJ, Davis FE, Gibbs MA, Knuth T, Letarte PB, Luchette FA, Omert L: Guidelines for emergency tracheal intubation immediately after traumatic injury. J Trauma. 2003, 55: 162-179. 10.1097/01.ta.0000083335.93868.2c.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Smith CE, Walls RM, Lockey D, Kuhnigk H: Advanced airway management and use of anesthetic drugs. Prehospital Trauma Care. Edited by: Søreide E, Grande CM. 2001, New York: Marcel Dekker, 203-253.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  4. Dunford J, Davis D, Ochs M, Doney M, Hoyt D: Incidence of transient hypoxia and pulse rate reactivity during paramedic rapid sequence intubation. Ann Emerg Med. 2003, 42: 721-728. 10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00660-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Spaite DW, Criss EA: Out-of-hospital rapid sequence intubation: are we helping or hurting our patients?. Ann Emerg Med. 2003, 42: 729-730. 10.1016/S0196-0644(03)00822-9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Wirtz DD, Ortiz C, Newman DH, Zhitomirsky I: Unrecognized misplacement of endotracheal tubes by ground prehospital providers. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007, 11: 213-218. 10.1080/10903120701205935.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Timmermann A, Russo SG, Eich C, Roessler M, Braun U, Rosenblatt W, Quintel M: The out-of-hospital esophageal and endobronchial intubations performed by emergency physicians. Anesth Analg. 2007, 104: 619-623. 10.1213/01.ane.0000253523.80050.e9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Adnet F, Jourlies NJ, Le Toumelin P, Hennequin B, Taillandier C, Rayeh F, Couvreur J, Nougière B, Nadiras P, Ladka A, Fleury M: Survey of out-of-hospital emergency entubations in the French prehospital medical system: a multicenter study. Ann Emerg Med. 1998, 32: 454-460. 10.1016/S0196-0644(98)70175-1.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Timmermann A, Russo SG, Hollmann MW: Paramedic versus emergency physician emergency medical service: role of the anaesthesiologist and the European versus the Anglo-American concept. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2008, 21 (2): 222-227. 10.1097/ACO.0b013e3282f5f4f7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cobas MA, De la Pena MA, Manning R, Candiotti K, Varon AJ: Prehospital intubations and mortality: a level 1 trauma center perspective. Anesth Analg. 2009, 109: 489-493. 10.1213/ane.0b013e3181aa3063.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Katz SH, Falk JL: Misplaced endotracheal tubes by paramedics in an urban emergency medical services system. Ann Emerg Med. 2001, 37: 32-37. 10.1067/mem.2001.112098.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Berlac P, Hyldmo PK, Kongstad P, Kurola J, Nakstad AR, Sandberg M: Pre-hospital airway management: guidelines from a task force from the Scandinavian Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2008, 52: 897-907.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland. Pre-hospital Anaesthesia. London. 2009Google Scholar
  14. Sollid S, Heltne J, Soreide E, Lossius H: Pre-hospital advanced airway management by anaesthesiologists: Is there still room for improvement?. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2008, 16: 2-10.1186/1757-7241-16-2.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Drug-assisted intubation in the prehospital setting position statement of the National Association of Emergency Physicians. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006, 10: 260-10.1080/10903120500541514.Google Scholar
  16. Wang HE, Domeier RM, Kupas DF, Greenwood MJ, O'Connor RE: Recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of data from out-of-hospital airway management: position statement of the National Association of EMS Physicians. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004, 8: 58-72. 10.1016/j.prehos.2004.06.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Ringdal KG, Coats TJ, Lefering R, di Bartolomeo S, Steen PA, Røise O, Handolin L, Lossius HM: The Utstein template for uniform reporting of data following major trauma: A joint revision by SCANTEM, TARN, DGU-TR and RITG. Scand J Trauma Resusc Emerg Med. 2008, 16 (1): 7-10.1186/1757-7241-16-7.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Chamberlain DA, Hazinski MF: Education in resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2003, 59: 11-43. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.08.011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Delbecq AL, Van de Ven AH: A group process model for problem identification and program planning. J Appl Behav Sci. 1971, 7: 467-492. 10.1177/002188637100700404.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Van de Ven AH, Delbecq AL: The nominal group as a research instrument for exploratory health studies. Am J Public Health. 1972, 62: 337-342. 10.2105/AJPH.62.3.337.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Castrén M, Karlsten R, Lippert F, Christensen EF, Bovim E, Kvam AM, Robertson-Steel I, Overton J, Kraft T, Engstrom L, Riego LG: Recomended guidelines for reporting on emergency medical dispatch when conducting research in emergency medicine: The Utstein style. Resuscitation. 2008, 79: 193-197. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.07.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Langhelle A, Lossius HM, Silfvast T, Bjornsson HM, Lippert FK, Ersson A, Soreide E: International EMS Systems: the Nordic countries. Resuscitation. 2004, 61: 9-21. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2003.12.008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt UH, Kumwilaisak K, Bittner E, George E, Hess D: Effects of supervision by attending anesthesiologists on complications of emergency tracheal intubation. Anesthesiology. 2008, 109: 973-977. 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31818ddb90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Chen L, Hsiao A: Randomized trial of endotracheal tube versus laryngeal mask airway in simulated prehospital pediatric arrest. Pediatrics. 2008, 122: e294-e297. 10.1542/peds.2008-0103.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Nolan J, Soar J: Airway techniques and ventilation strategies. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008, 14: 279-286. 10.1097/MCC.0b013e3282f85bc8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Tentillier E, Heydenreich C, Cros AM, Schmitt V, Dindart JM, Thicoipe M: Use of the intubating laryngeal mask airway in emergency pre-hospital difficult intubation. Resuscitation. 2008, 77: 30-34. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2007.06.035.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Bozeman W, Kleiner D, Huggett V: A comparison of rapid-sequence intubation and etomidate-only intubation in the prehospital air medical setting. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006, 10: 8-13. 10.1080/10903120500366854.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Wang H, Davis D, O'connor R, Domeier R: Drug-assisted intubation in the prehospital setting (Resource document to NAEMSP position statement). Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006, 10: 261-271. 10.1080/10903120500541506.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Cudnik MT, Newgard CD, Wang H, Bangs C, Herrington R: Distance impacts mortality in trauma patients with an intubation attempt. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008, 12: 459-466. 10.1080/10903120802290745.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kerr WA, Kerns TJ, Bissell RA: Differences in mortality rates among trauma patients transported by helicopter and ambulance in Maryland. Prehosp disaster med. 1999, 14: 159-164.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Demetriades D, Chan L, Cornwell E, Belzberg H, Berne TV, Asensio J, Chan D, Eckstein M, Alo K: Paramedic vs private transportation of trauma patients. Effect on outcome. Arch surg. 1996, 131: 133-138.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Shy BD, Rea TD, Becker LJ, Eisenberg MS: Time to intubate and survival in prehospital cardiac arrest. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2004, 8: 394-399. 10.1016/j.prehos.2004.06.013.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Blackwell TH, Kaufman JS: Response time effectiveness: Comparison of response time and survival in an urban emergency medical service system. Acad Emerg Med. 2002, 9: 288-295. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2002.tb01321.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Bergeron E, Rossignol M, Osler T, Clas D, Lavoie A: Improving the TRISS methodology by restructuring age categories and adding comorbidities. J Trauma. 2004, 56: 760-767. 10.1097/01.TA.0000119199.52226.C0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Morris JA, MacKenzie EJ, Damiano AM, Bass SM: Mortality in trauma patients: the interaction between host factors and severity. J Trauma. 1990, 30: 1476-1482.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Milzman DP, Boulanger BR, Rodriguez A, Soderstrom CA, Mitchell KA, Magnant CM: Pre-existing disease in trauma patients: a predictor of fate independent of age and injury severity score. J Trauma. 1992, 32: 236-243. 10.1097/00005373-199202000-00021.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Poses RM, McClish DK, Smith WR, Bekes C, Scott WE: Prediction of survival of critically ill patients by admission comorbidity. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996, 49: 743-747. 10.1016/0895-4356(96)00021-2.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. ASA physical status classification system. [http://www.asahq.org/clinical/physicalstatus.htm]
  39. Skaga NO, Eken T, Søvik S, Jones JM, Steen PA: Pre-injury ASA physical status classification is an independent predictor of mortality after trauma. J Trauma. 63: 972-978. 10.1097/TA.0b013e31804a571c.Google Scholar
  40. Lefering R: Trauma score systems for quality assessment. European Journal of Trauma and Emergency Surgery. 2002, 28: 52-63.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  41. Le Gall JR, Lemeshow S, Saulnier F: A new simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) based on a European/North American multicenter study. JAMA. 1993, 270: 2957-2963. 10.1001/jama.270.24.2957.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Knudson MM, Lieberman J, Morris JA, Cushing BM, Stubbs HA: Mortality factors in geriatric blunt trauma patients. Arch Surg. 1994, 129 (4): 448-453.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Wohltmann CD, Franklin GA, Boaz PW, Luchette FA, Kearney PA, Richardson JD, Spain DA: A multicenter evaluation of whether gender dimorphism affects survival after trauma. Am J Surg. 2001, 181: 297-300. 10.1016/S0002-9610(01)00582-7.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Walls RM: Manual of emergency airway management. 2004, Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2Google Scholar
  45. Ellis DY, Davies GE, Pearn J, Lockey D: Prehospital rapid-sequence intubation of patients with trauma with a Glasgow Coma Score of 13 or 14 and the subsequent incidence of intracranial pathology. Emerg Med J. 2007, 24: 139-141. 10.1136/emj.2006.040428.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Champion HR, Sacco WJ, Copes WS, Gann DS, Gennarelli TA, Flanagan ME: A revision of the Trauma Score. J Trauma. 1989, 29: 623-629. 10.1097/00005373-198905000-00017.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Davis D, Fisher R, Buono C, Brainard C, Smith S, Ochs G, Poste J, Dunford J: Predictors of intubation success and therapeutic value of paramedic airway management in a large, urban EMS system. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006, 10: 356-362. 10.1080/10903120600725751.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Chan L, Bartfield JM, Reilly KM: The significance of out-of-hospital hypotension in blunt trauma patients. Acad Emerg Med. 1997, 4: 785-788. 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1997.tb03785.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Mort T: Emergency tracheal intubation: complications associated with repeated laryngoscopic attempts. Anesth Analg. 2004, 99: 607-613. 10.1213/01.ANE.0000122825.04923.15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Davis D, Serrano JA, Vilke G, Sise M, Kennedy F, Eastman A, Velky T, Hoyt D: The predictive value of field versus arrival Glasgow Coma Scale score and TRISS calculations in moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury. J Trauma. 2006, 60: 985-990. 10.1097/01.ta.0000205860.96209.1c.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Advanced trauma life support for doctors ATLS: manuals for coordinators and faculty. 2008, Chicago, IL: American College of Surgeons, EightGoogle Scholar
  52. Piek J: Guidelines for the pre-hospital care of patients with severe head injuries. Working group for neurosurgical intensive care of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1998, 24: 1221-1225. 10.1007/s001340050748.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Davis D, Hwang JQ, Dunford J: Rate of decline in oxygen saturation at various pulse oximetry values with prehospital rapid sequence intubation. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2008, 12: 46-51. 10.1080/10903120701710470.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Davis D, Dunford J, Poste J, Ochs M, Holbrook T, Fortlage D, Size M, Kennedy F, Hoyt D: The Impact of Hypoxia and Hyperventilation on Outcome after Paramedic Rapid Sequence Intubation of Severely Head-Injured Patients. J Trauma. 2004, 57: 1-10. 10.1097/01.TA.0000135503.71684.C8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Tiamfook-Morgan TO, Harrison TH, Thomas SH: What happens to SpO2 during air medical crew intubations?. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2006, 10: 363-368. 10.1080/10903120600725835.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Helm M, Hauke J, Lampl L: A prospective study of the quality of pre-hospital emergency ventilation in patients with severe head injury. Br J Anaesth. 2002, 88: 345-349. 10.1093/bja/88.3.345.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Davis D, Idris A, Sise M, Kennedy F, Eastman A, Velky T, Vilke G, Hoyt D: Early ventilation and outcome in patients with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury*. Crit Care Med. 2006, 34: 1202-1208. 10.1097/01.CCM.0000208359.74623.1C.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Davis D, Dunford J, Ochs M, Park K, Hoyt D: The use of quantitative end-tidal capnometry to avoid inadvertent severe hyperventilation in patients with head injury after paramedic rapid sequence intubation. J Trauma. 2004, 56: 808-814. 10.1097/01.TA.0000100217.05066.87.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Wang H, Cook LJ, Chang CC, Yealy D, Lave J: Outcomes after out-of-hospital endotracheal intubation errors. Resuscitation. 2009, 80: 50-55. 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2008.08.016.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Jaeger K, Ruschulte H, Osthaus A, Scheinichen D, Heine J: Tracheal injury as a sequence of multiple attempts of endotracheal intubation in the course of a preclinical cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2000, 43: 147-150. 10.1016/S0300-9572(99)00124-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Gausche-Hill M: Ensuring quality in prehospital airway management. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2003, 16: 173-181. 10.1097/00001503-200304000-00011.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Wirtz D, Ortiz C, Newman D, Zhitomirsky I: Unrecognized misplacement of endotracheal tubes by ground prehospital providers. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007, 11: 213-218. 10.1080/10903120701205935.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Davis D, Ochs M, Hoyt D, Bailey D, Marshall L, Rosen P: Paramedic-administered neuromuscular blockade improves prehospital intubation success in severely head-injured patients. J Trauma. 2003, 55: 713-719. 10.1097/01.TA.0000037428.65987.12.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Konrad C, Schupfer G, Wietlisbach M, Gerber H: Learning manual skills in anesthesiology: Is there a recommended number of cases for anesthetic procedures?. Anesth Analg. 1998, 86: 635-639. 10.1097/00000539-199803000-00037.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Ivatury RR, Nallathambi MN, Roberge RJ, Rohman M, Stahl W: Penetrating thoracic injuries: in-field stabilization vs. prompt transport. J Trauma. 1987, 27: 1066-1073.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Smith JP, Bodai BI, Hill AS, Frey CF: Prehospital stabilization of critically injured patients: a failed concept. J Trauma. 1985, 25: 65-70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Cudnik M, Newgard C, Wang H, Bangs C, Herringtion R: Endotracheal intubation increases out-of-hospital time in trauma patients. Prehosp Emerg Care. 2007, 11: 224-229. 10.1080/10903120701205208.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Juvin P, Lavaut E, Dupont H, Lefevre P, Demetriou M, Dumoulin J, Desmonts J: Difficult tracheal intubation is more common in obese than in lean patients. Anesth Analg. 2003, 595-600. 10.1213/01.ANE.0000072547.75928.B0.Google Scholar

Copyright

© Sollid et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2009

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.