Impact of chemical, biological, radiation, and nuclear personal protective equipment on the performance of low- and high-dexterity airway and vascular access skills.
Resuscitation · 2009-08-26 · Other / unclear
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Following CBRN incidents health care professionals will be required to care for critically ill patients within the warm zone, prior to decontamination, whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. The loss of fine-motor skills may adversely affect delivery of medical care. METHODS: 64 clinicians were recruited to perform, intubation, LMA placement, insertion of an IV cannula and IO needle whilst wearing CBRN-PPE. A fractional factorial design was employed, in which each of the 64 clinicians had two attempts at performing each skill whilst wearing CBRN-PPE and once unsuited according to a pre-specified sequence. ANALYSIS: The unsuited and suit data were analysed independently with the primary outcome being time taken to complete each skill whilst suited. Analysis was undertaken using STATA (V9.2). RESULTS: Mean times differ considerably by skill (p<0.001). Overall, times to completion on attempt 2 were shorter than attempt 1 (p=0.045), though the reduction in time differed significantly by skill (p=0.004). LMA placement was on average completed nearly 45 s faster than intubation, and IO cannulation was nearly 90 s faster than IV cannulation. Whilst suited, 8% of intubation and 12% of intra-venous cannulation attempts were unsuccessful. Previous familiarity with CBRN-PPE did not improve performance (p=0.23). Professional groups differed significantly (p=0.009) with anaesthetists performing all skills faster than the other clinicians. CONCLUSION: This study supports the concept of instigating airway and vascular access skills whilst wearing CBRN-PPE but challenges the sole reliance on 'high-dexterity skills'. Intubation is feasible but must be considered within the context of the incident as the LMA may offer a viable alternative. Intra-venous access prior to casualty decontamination is arguably a pointless skill and should be replaced with IO access.
Abstract © the authors or publisher, via PubMed. Reuse and removal
Tags
Endotracheal intubation · Intraosseous access · Intravenous access · Personal protective equipment · Supraglottic airway
Related articles
- CBRNe Personal Protective Equipment Is Not a Hindrance to Lifesaving Procedures in Prehospital Settings: A Prospective, Repeated-Measures Observational Study. (Epidemiologia (Basel), 2025)
- IO versus IV access while wearing personal protective equipment in a HazMat scenario. (Prehosp Emerg Care, 2007)
- A randomised crossover simulation study comparing the impact of chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear substance personal protection equipment on the performance of advanced life support interventions. (Anaesthesia, 2017)
- Qualitative interview study of clinicians’ opinions of which intubation aids to use following a CBRN incident (Journal of Paramedic Practice, 2012)
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Canadian emergency medical system management of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A retrospective cohort study. (Resuscitation, 2024)
- Comparison of six different intubation aids for use while wearing CBRN-PPE: a manikin study. (Resuscitation, 2011)