Attitudes towards the Utilization of Intraosseous Access in Prehospital and Emergency Medicine Nursing Personnel

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Insertion of an intraosseous access device enables intravascular access for critically ill patients in a prehospital and emergency department setting even when intravenous access is not possible. The aim of our study was to assess the attitudes of prehospital and emergency department nursing staff towards the utilization of intraosseous access devices. Materials and Methods: We performed quantitative research using a closed-ended structured questionnaire distributed to prehospital unit and associated emergency department nursing staff serving a population of around 200,000 inhabitants. Results: We distributed 140 questionnaires, and 106 were returned and completed. Of these, 69 (65.1%) respondents needed more than three attempts to achieve peripheral intravenous access at least once in the last year and 29 (27.4%) required central venous access because of impossible intravenous access. In the last five years, 8 (7.5%) respondents used endotracheal route for administration of medications. Despite this, only 48 (45.3%) of respondents have ever used the intraosseous route. Also, 79 (74.5%) respondents received at least some training in obtaining IO access; however, 46 (43.4%) answered that education regarding intraosseous access is not sufficient, and 92 (86.8%) answered that they wanted additional training regarding intraosseous access. Conclusions: Prehospital and emergency department nursing staff are aware of the importance of intraosseous access and understand the need for additional education and certification in this field.

Related collections

Most cited references 26

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 3. Adult advanced life support.

Jasmeet Soar, Jerry P Nolan, Bernd W Böttiger … (2015)

0 comments Cited 354 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

European Resuscitation Council Guidelines for Resuscitation 2015: Section 6. Paediatric life support.

Ian Maconochie, Robert Bingham, Christoph Eich … (2015)

0 comments Cited 112 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Intraosseous versus intravenous vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a randomized controlled trial.

John Garrett, Rosalyn Reades, Jonathan R Studnek … (2011)

Intraosseous needle insertion during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is rapidly replacing peripheral intravenous routes in the out-of-hospital setting. However, there are few data directly comparing the effectiveness of intraosseous needle insertions with peripheral intravenous insertions during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. The objective of this study is to determine whether there is a difference in the frequency of first-attempt success between humeral intraosseous, tibial intraosseous, and peripheral intravenous insertions during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. This was a randomized trial of adult patients experiencing a nontraumatic out-of-hospital cardiac arrest in which resuscitation efforts were initiated. Patients were randomized to one of 3 routes of vascular access: tibial intraosseous, humeral intraosseous, or peripheral intravenous. Paramedics received intensive training and exposure to all 3 methods before study initiation. The primary outcome was first-attempt success, defined as secure needle position in the marrow cavity or a peripheral vein, with normal fluid flow. Needle dislodgement during resuscitation was coded as a failure to maintain vascular access. There were 182 patients enrolled, with 64 (35%) assigned to tibial intraosseous, 51 (28%) humeral intraosseous, and 67 (37%) peripheral intravenous access. Demographic characteristics were similar among patients in the 3 study arms. There were 130 (71%) patients who experienced initial vascular access success, with 17 (9%) needles becoming dislodged, for an overall frequency of first-attempt success of 113 (62%). Individuals randomized to tibial intraosseous access were more likely to experience a successful first attempt at vascular access (91%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 83% to 98%) compared with either humeral intraosseous access (51%; 95% CI 37% to 65%) or peripheral intravenous access (43%; 95% CI 31% to 55%) groups. Time to initial success was significantly shorter for individuals assigned to the tibial intraosseous access group (4.6 minutes; interquartile range 3.6 to 6.2 minutes) compared with those assigned to the humeral intraosseous access group (7.0 minutes; interquartile range 3.9 to 10.0 minutes), and neither time was significantly different from that of the peripheral intravenous access group (5.8 minutes; interquartile range 4.1 to 8.0 minutes). Tibial intraosseous access was found to have the highest first-attempt success for vascular access and the most rapid time to vascular access during out-of-hospital cardiac arrest compared with peripheral intravenous and humeral intraosseous access. Copyright © 2011 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.