ArticleBMJ open quality2021
Increasing use of an endotracheal intubation safety checklist in the emergency department.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development of an Emergency Department Safety Checklist through a global consensus process.Internal and emergency medicine · 2025Guideline
- The use of non-invasive ventilation by emergency doctors in Johannesburg Academic Hospitals, South Africa - assessing knowledge, attitudes and practices.African journal of emergency medicine : Revue africaine de la medecine d'urgence · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is a high-risk procedure often performed in the emergency department (ED) in critically unwell patients. The fourth National Audit Project by The Royal College of Anaesthetists found the risk of adverse events is much higher when performing the intervention in this setting compared with a theatre suite, and therefore use of a safety checklist is recommended. This quality improvement project was set in a large teaching hospital in the North West of the UK, where anaesthesia and intensive care clinicians are responsible for performing this procedure. A retrospective baseline audit indicated checklist use was 16.7% of applicable cases. The project aim was to increase the incidence of checklist use in the ED to 90% within a 6-month period. The model for improvement was used as a methodological approach to the problem along with other quality improvement tools, including a driver diagram to generate change ideas. The interventions were targeted at three broad areas: awareness of the checklist and expectation of use, building a favourable view of the benefits of the checklist and increasing the likelihood it would be remembered to use the checklist in the correct moment. After implementation checklist use increased to 84%. In addition, run chart analysis indicated a pattern of nonrandom variation in the form of a shift. This coincided with the period shortly after the beginning of the interventions. The changes were viewed favourably by junior and senior anaesthetists, as well as operating department practitioners and ED staff. Limitations of the project were that some suitable cases were likely missed due to the method of capture and lack of anonymous qualitative feedback on the changes made. Overall, however, it was shown the combination of low-cost interventions made was effective in increasing checklist use when performing emergency ETI in the ED.
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.