Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
  • Home
Article
  • Cited by 4

  • Get access
    Add to cart £25.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register

Comparison of Techniques for Securing the Endotracheal Tube while Wearing Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Protection: A Manikin Study

  • Nick Castle (a1) (a2), Robert Owen (a2) (a3), Simon Clark (a1), Mark Hann (a4), David Reeces (a4) and Ian Gurney (a1)...

Abstract

Objective:

The objective of this study was to assess the impact of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear personal protective equipment (CBRN-PPE) on the ability to secure an endotracheal tube (ETT) with either the Thomas Tube Holder™ or cotton tape tied in a knot.

Methods:

Seventy-five clinicians secured an ETT in a previously intubated manikin with the Thomas Tube Holder™ and cotton tape. A mixed quantitative and qualitative research design was used to gauge actual performance times and perceptions of difficulties. Following completion of the study, 25 clinicians were interviewed to gauge their experiences of securing the ETT with both devices while wearing CBRN-PPE.

Results:

The mean time to apply the Thomas Tube Holder was 29.02 seconds, compared with tape which took a mean of 58 seconds (p = 0.001). Clinicians rated the Thomas Tube Holder as easier to use than tape (Mann-Whitney z = 9.934; p <0.001), which was confirmed during interviews. Of the clinicians interviewed, 92% perceived that the Thomas Tube Holder provided the better method for securing an ETT, none of the clinicians identified the tape as the best method for securing the endotracheal tube while wearing CBRN-PPE. Clinicians identified that the design of the Thomas Tube Holder facilitated the gross motor movement required for application.

Conclusions:

The Thomas Tube Holder is easier and faster to apply when wearing CBRN-PPE when compared with cotton, and the Thomas Tube Holder is perceived by the participants as being more effective at preventing accidential extubation

Copyright

COPYRIGHT: © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2010

Corresponding author

Nurse Consultant Resuscitation and Emergency Care, Emergency Department, Frimley Park Hospital Portsmouth Road, Camberley, Surrey, UK E-mail: castle.nicholas@gmail.com

References

Hide All
1.Okumura, T, Takasu, N, Ishimatsu, S, et al: Report on 640 victims of the Tokyo subway sarin attack. Ann Emerg Med 1996;28:129–136.
2.Lam, KK and Lau, FL: An incident of Hydrogen cyanide poisoning. Am J Emerg Med 2000;18:172–175.
3.Stacey, R, Morfey, D, Payne, S: Secondary contamination in organophosphate poisioning: analysis of an incident. Q J Med 2004;97:75–80.
4.Nolan, JP, Deakin, CD, Soar, J, et al: European Resuscitation Council guidelines for Resuscitation 2005: Section 4. Adult advanced life support. Resuscitation 2005;67S1:s39–s86.
5.Baker, DJ: Advanced life support for acute toxic injury (TOXALSTM). Eur J Emerg Med 1996;3:256–262.
6.Byers, M, Russell, R, Jockey, DJ: Clinical care in the ‘hot zone’. Emergency Medical Journal 2008;25:108–112.
7.Nozaki, H, Hori, S, Shinozawa, Y, et al: Secondary exposure of medical staff to sarin vapour in the emergency department. Intensive Care Med 1995;21:1032–1035.
8.Nakajima, T, Sato, S, Morita, H, Yanagisawa, N: Sarin poisoning of a rescue team in the Matsumoto sarin incidedent in Japan. Occup Environ Med 1997;54:697–701.
9.Geller, RJ, Singleton, KL, Drenzek, CL: Case report: Nosocomial poisoning associated with emergency department treatment of organophosphate toxicity—Georgia 2000. Clin Tox 2001;1:109–111.
10.Hendler, I, Nahtomi, O, Segal, E, et al: The effect of full protective gear on intubation performance by hospital medical personnel. Mil Med 2000;165:272–274.
11.Garner, A, Laurence, H, Lee, A: Practicality of performing medical procedures in chemical protective ensembles. Emerg Med Australas 2004;16:108–113.
12.Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Ben-Abraham, R, et al: Antichemical protective gear prolongs times to successful airway management. Anaesthesiology 2004;100(2):260–266.
13.Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, Friedman, A, et al: Laryngeal mask airway insertion by anethestists and nonanethesthetists wearing unconventional protective gear. Anesthesiology 2004;100:267–273.
14.Suyama, J, Knutsen, CC, Northington, WE, et al: IO verses IV access while wearing personal protective equipment in a HazMat scenario. Prehosp Emerg Care 2007;11:467–472.
15.Carlson, J, Mayrose, J, Krause, R, Jehle, D: Extubation force: Tape versus endotracheal tube holders. Ann Emerg Med 2007;50(6):686–691.
16.Brinker, A, Gray, SA, Schumacher, J: Influence of air-purifying respirators on the simulated first response emergency treatment of CBRN victims. Resuscitation 2007;74:310–316.
17.Ben-Abraham, R, Gur, Llan, Vater, Y, Weinbroum, AA: Intraosseous emergency access by physicians wearing protective gear. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:(12):1407–1410.
18.Berkenstadt, H, Arad, M, Nahtomi, O, Atsmon, J: The effect of a chemical protective ensemble on intravenous line insertion by emergency medical technicians. Mil Med 1999;164:737–739.
19.Kales, SN, Christiani, DC: Acute chemical emergencies. N Engl J Med 2004;350:800–808.
20.Ben-Abraham, R, Flaishon, R, Sotman, A, et al: Cuffed oropharyngeal airway (COPA) placement is delayed by wearing anti-chemical protective clothing. EMJ 2008;25:847–850.
21.Krueger, G: Psychological and performance effects of chemical biological protective clothing and equipment. Mil Med 2001;166(suppl 2):41–43.
22.Boulain, T: Unplanned extubation in the adult intensive care unit. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1998;157:1131–1137.
23.MacDonald, RD, LeBlanc, V, McAurthur, B, Durbrowski, A: Performance of resuscitation skills by paramedic personnel in chemical protective suits. Prehos Emerg Care 2006;10:254–259.
24.Owen, R, Castle, N, Hann, H, et al: Extubation force: A comparison of adhesive, non-adhesive tape and a commercial endotracheal tube holder. Resuscitation 2009;80:1296–1300.

Keywords

  • Cited by 4

  • Get access
    Add to cart £25.00
    Check if you have access via personal or institutional login
    Log in Register

Comparison of Techniques for Securing the Endotracheal Tube while Wearing Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear Protection: A Manikin Study

  • Nick Castle (a1) (a2), Robert Owen (a2) (a3), Simon Clark (a1), Mark Hann (a4), David Reeces (a4) and Ian Gurney (a1)...

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed