Impact of Personal Protective Equipment on the Performance of Emergency Pediatric Procedures by Prehospital Providers

Assessing the New Norm: A Simulation Study to Assess Pediatric Emergency Physician Success in Critical Procedures With an Air Purifying Respirator

INTRODUCTION

Physicians caring for patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for contracting the disease, thus, significant emphasis has been placed on personal protective equipment (PPE). The study aims to assess the impact of advanced PPE across 4 common procedures: endotracheal intubation, bag-valve mask ventilation, intraosseous (IO) insertion, and lumbar puncture (LP) performed by pediatric emergency physicians.

METHOD

Physicians performed the procedures in a simulated environment. Lumbar puncture and IO were performed with standard precautions versus an air purifying respirator (APR). A direct comparison was drawn for endotracheal intubation and bag-valve mask ventilation between 2 commonly used APRs. Success rate and number of attempts toward successful completion was recorded for all 4 procedures. Physicians filled out a postprocedure survey to assess their ease of use of the APR.

RESULTS

Twenty participants performed IO and LP using an APR and standard precautions. There was no statistical difference in the success rate, number of attempts, average time, or maintenance of sterility (LP only) for both procedures. Twenty total participants divided across 2 types of APR groups performed intubation and BMV. Success rate and number of attempts had no statistical difference for both procedures. Physician feedback surveys to assess the ease of use of APR compared with standard precautions had no statistically significant difference for all 4 procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Wearing increased levels of PPE did not impact procedural success, length of time, sterility, number of attempts, or the physicians' ease in our study. Physicians should be encouraged to wear all appropriate PPE.

The Effect of a Plastic Barrier Drape on Resuscitation Performance and Provider Contamination: A Randomized Controlled Simulation-Based Pilot Trial

BACKGROUND

Patient barriers to protect health care workers from COVID-19 exposure have been studied for airway management. Few are tested for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). We sought to determine whether a plastic drape barrier affects resuscitation performance and contamination risks for a simulated cardiopulmonary arrest scenario.

METHODS

This pilot trial randomized in-hospital resuscitation teams of 4 to 6 participants to a plastic drape or without a drape in an in situ cardiopulmonary arrest simulation. The mannequin's airway emanated simulated virus particles (GloGerm, Moab, UT), detectable through UV light. Primary outcomes included airway management and CPR quality measures. Secondary outcomes included visible contamination on personal protective equipment (PPE). We used the Non-Technical Skills (NO-TECHS) instrument to measure perceived team performance and the NASA Task Load Index (NASA-TLX) to measure individual workload. Outcome variables were analyzed using an analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) with participant number as a covariate.

RESULTS

Seven teams were allocated to the intervention (plastic drape) group and 7 to the control. Intubation and ventilation performance (η 2 = 0.09, P > 0.3) and chest compression quality (η 2 = 0.03-0.19, P > 0.14) were not affected by the plastic drape. However, mean contaminated PPE per person decreased with the drape (2.8 ± 0.3 vs. 3.7 ± 0.3, partial η 2 = 0.29, P = 0.05). No differences in perceived workload nor team performance were noted ( P > 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

In this pilot study, the use of a plastic drape barrier seems not to affect resuscitation performance on simulated cardiopulmonary arrest but decreases health care worker contamination risk. Further implementation trials could characterize the true risk reduction and any effect on resuscitation outcomes.

Comparison of intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing personal protective equipment in simulated COVID-19 resuscitation: A randomized crossover simulation trial

BACKGROUND

Prehospital emergency care of children is challenging. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic, when medical personnel should use personal protective equipment against aerosol-generating procedures, the efficiency of medical procedures may decrease. The study objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of different intravascular access methods applied by nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits in simulated paediatric COVID-19 resuscitation.

METHODS

A prospective, randomized, crossover, single-blinded simulation trial was performed. Nursing staff attending Advanced Cardiovascular Life Support courses accredited by the American Heart Association participated in the study. A total of 65 nurses were recruited and randomly assigned to different study groups. They received standard training on intravascular access methods employing distinct devices. The participants wore biosafety Level-2 suits and performed vascular access with the following intraosseous devices: NIO-P, EZ-IO, and Jamshidi needle; intravenous (IV) access was used as a reference method. Both the order of participants and the access methods were random. Each participant performed intravascular access with each of the four methods tested. The effectiveness of the first attempt to obtain intravascular access and the following time parameters were analysed: the time between grasping the intravascular device out of the original packing until infusion line connection. The ease of the procedure was measured with a visual analogue scale (1 - easy; 10 - difficult).

RESULTS

The first attempt success rate of intravascular access by using NIO-P and EZ-IO equalled 100% and was statistically significantly higher than that with the Jamshidi needle (80.0%; p = 0.02) and with the IV method (69.2%; p = 0.005). The time required to connect the infusion line varied and amounted to 33 ± 4 s for NIO-P compared to 37 ± 6.7 s for EZ-IO (p<0.001), 43 ± 7 s for Jamshidi (p<0.001), and 98.5 ± 10 s for IV access (p<0.001). The procedure was easiest in the case of NIO-P and EZ-IO (2 ± 1 points; p=1.0) compared with Jamshidi (5 ± 3 points; p<0.001) and IV access (7 ± 2 points; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The study provides evidence that nurses wearing biosafety Level-2 suits were able to obtain intraosseous access faster and more effectively as compared with IV access during simulated COVID-19 paediatric resuscitation. The most effective method of intravascular access was the NIO-P intraosseous device. Further clinical trials are necessary to confirm the results.

Impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak on the transportation of patients requiring emergency care

The first confirmed community transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 in Daegu Metropolitan City, South Korea, occurred on February 18, 2020. In the following 70-day period, approximately 6000 new cases occurred, severely impacting the medical service system. This study investigated the crisis-impact on the local emergency transport system.Emergency medical service activity reports were retrospectively reviewed to determine patient demographics and initial vital signs. Delay in reaching the patient, transporting the patient to the hospital, and returning to the fire station were assessed and categorized based on patients' initial vital signs. The study period was divided into 4 groups (1/1-2/18, 2/19-3/3, 3/4-3/31, and 4/1-04/30) and intergroup differences were analyzed.When compared to Period 1, the time-difference between the request to attend a scene and arrival at the scene was delayed in Periods 2, 3, and 4 by 4 minute 58 s, 3  minute 24 seconds, and 2 minute 20 seconds, respectively; that between arriving at the scene and at the hospital was delayed by 7  minute 43 seconds, 6 minutes 59 seconds, and 4 minutes 30 seconds, respectively; and that between arriving at the hospital and returning to the fire station was delayed by 29  minute 3 second, 25  minute 55 second, and 18  minute 44 second, respectively. In Period 2, for patients with symptoms of severe illness when compared to patients lacking such symptoms, the time-difference between the request to attend the scene and arrival at a hospital and between arrival at the hospital and returning to the fire station were 6 to 23 minute and 12 to 48 minute longer, respectively. Most of the delays impacted patients with a fever. In terms of condition, the statistical effect size for delay in transport time was from large to small: fever, hypoxia, abnormal respiratory rate, respiratory symptom, and hypotension.Outbreaks of infectious disease cause a paradoxical state in emergency medical transport systems, inducing delays in the transport of severely ill patients. Therefore, maintenance and improvement of the medical service system for both patients with infectious disease and those with other severe illnesses is required.