ArticleCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2022
Performance and impact of an airway management team launched during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hospital cohort study on survival predictors for intubated coronavirus disease 2019 patients.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024Article
- Characterizing intubation practices in response to the COVID-19 pandemic: a survey of the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network (CCEDRRN) sites.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the performance and impact of an airway management team (AMT) assembled during the COVID-19 pandemic.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort review of all adult patients who had received airway management services from the AMT (n = 269) and administered a survey questionnaire targeting physicians who had the option to activate the AMT (n = 77). The retrospective review determined the performance of the AMT, and the physicians' survey evaluated the impact of the AMT. The study was conducted at a large Canadian health centre (1,133 beds) from 28 March to 30 June 2020. We included patients in the cohort review who were ≥18 yr of age, whose chart showed that the AMT was activated, and whose airway was managed outside the operating room. We reviewed both electronic medical records and paper chart documentation. Outcomes included intubation success, number of intubation attempts, intubation time, team response time, patient contact time, intubation complications, and breaches of personal protective equipment (PPE) protocol. The physicians' survey evaluated the relevance, performance, reasonableness, and clinical utility of the AMT.
resultsThe AMT intubated 231 patients. Charts showed that 91% of intubations were accomplished on first attempt. The mean (standard deviation) intubation time was 2.1 (0.2) min. The complication rate was minimal. The incidence of breaching PPE protocol items was less than 6%. No AMT members reported COVID-19 symptoms. The response rate for the physician's survey was 36%. The consensus among the participants was that the AMT had considerable clinical utility during the COVID-19 pandemic.
conclusionAn AMT assembled during the COVID-19 pandemic showed high competency and effectiveness, and had favourable impact on the main responsible physicians who activated the team.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.