ArticleBMJ open2024
Feasibility of quality indicators on prehospital advanced airway management in a physician-staffed emergency medical service: survey-based assessment of the provider point of view.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to determine the feasibility of quality indicators (QIs) for prehospital advanced airway management (PAAM) from a provider point of view.
designThe study is a survey based feasibility assessment following field testing of QIs for PAAM.
settingThe study was performed in two physician staffed emergency medical services in Switzerland.
participants42 of the 44 emergency physicians who completed at least one case report form (CRF) dedicated to the collection of the QIs on PAAM between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 participated in the study.
interventionThe data required to calculate the 17 QIs was systematically collected through a dedicated electronic CRF. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcomes were provider-related feasibility criteria: relevance and acceptance of the QIs, as well as reliability of the data collection. Secondary outcomes were effort to collect specific data and to complete the CRF.
resultsOver the study period, 470 CRFs were completed, with a median of 11 per physician (IQR 4-17; range 1-48). The median time to complete the CRF was 7 min (IQR 3-16) and was considered reasonable by 95% of the physicians. Overall, 75% of the physicians assessed the set of QIs to be relevant, and 74% accepted that the set of QIs assessed the quality of PAAM. The reliability of data collection was rated as good or excellent for each of the 17 QIs, with the lowest rated for the following 3 QIs: duration of preoxygenation, duration of laryngoscopy and occurrence of desaturation during laryngoscopy.
conclusionsCollection of QIs on PAAM appears feasible. Electronic medical records and technological solutions facilitating automatic collection of vital parameters and timing during the procedure could improve the reliability of data collection for some QIs. Studies in other services are needed to determine the external validity of our results.
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.