Observational studyThe western journal of emergency medicine2026
Intubation Practices and Outcomes in Diverse Emergency Departments Within a Single Health System.
Observational study in The western journal of emergency medicine, 2026. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEndotracheal intubation (ETI) is a life-saving procedure commonly performed in emergency departments (ED). Prior research has demonstrated significant variability in ETI experience, practices, and outcomes across EDs. Health systems often include a mix of ED environments, from large academic hospitals to community-based and freestanding EDs. However, little is known about how ETI experiences and outcomes vary within a single health system. Our objective in this study was to compare first-attempt success across three EDs representing different practice environments but within one health system.
methodsThis retrospective observational study used institutional data from 1,659 ETI events between November 2021-January 2025 to compare ETI-related outcomes across three EDs representing a spectrum of settings: an academic Level I trauma center (A); a community teaching hospital (B); and a nonteaching community site (C). Our primary outcome measure was first-attempt success. We also assessed adverse airway outcomes and ETI-related patient and procedural characteristics. Chi-square tests evaluated the association of ETI-related outcomes and hospital sites.
resultsAnnual ED volumes were approximately 82,000 (A), 64,000 (B), and 49,000 (C), with respective ETI encounters per 1,000 patients of 5, 2, and 0.4. The community teaching hospital had the highest first-attempt success rate of 90.2% (B: 331/367; 95% CI, 87.2-93.2), followed by the academic center with 84.6% (A: 1038/1227, 95% CI, 82.6-86.6), and then by the nonteaching community site with 78.5% (C: 51/65; 95% CI, 68.5-88.5) (P = .01). Adverse airway outcomes occurred in 10.5% of ETIs and did not vary significantly between sites (A: 139/1,227 [11.3%]; B: 29/367 [7.9%]; C: 6/65 [9.2%], P = .16). The most common indication was airway protection, followed by altered mental status and cardiopulmonary arrest for all three sites. Trainees performed the majority of ETIs at hospital A (1,096/1,227; 89.3%), while attending physicians predominated at B (295/367; 80.4%) and C (64/65; 98.5%).
conclusionWe found significant variation in first-attempt success between the three ED sites, although overall success and adverse airway outcomes were comparable. These findings suggest that first-attempt success may be impacted by factors such as patient differences, role and training level of laryngoscopists, and inherent site-level differences such as patient volume and acuity.
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.