English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Emergency patients with decreased level of consciousness often undergo intubation purely for airway protection from aspiration. However, the true risk of aspiration is unclear and intubation poses risks. Anecdotally, experienced emergency physicians often defer intubation in these patients while others intubate to decrease the perceived clinical and medico-legal consequences. No literature exists on the intubation practices of emergency physicians in these cases.  Methods:  An online questionnaire was circulated to members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. Participants were asked questions regarding two common clinical cases with decreased level of consciousness : (1) acute, uncomplicated alcohol intoxication and (2) acute, uncomplicated seizure. For each case, providers’ perceptions of aspiration risk, the standard of care, and the need for intubation were assessed.  Results:  128 of the 1546 Canadian physicians contacted (8.3%) provided responses. Respondents had a median of 15 years of experience, 88% had CCFP-EM or FRCPC certification, and most worked in urban centers. When intubating, 98% agreed they were competent and 90% agreed they were well supported. A minority (17.4%) considered GCS &lt; 8 an independent indication for intubation. For the alcohol intoxication case, 88% agreed that aspiration risk was present but only 11% agreed they commonly intubate. Only 17% agreed intubation was standard care, and only 0.8% felt their colleagues always intubate such patients. For the seizure case, 65% agreed aspiration risk existed but only 3% agreed they commonly intubate, 1% felt colleagues always intubated, and 5% agreed intubation was standard of care. Additional factors felt to compel intubation (394 total) and support non-intubation (366 total) were compiled and categorized; the most common themes emerging were objective evidence of emesis or aspiration, other standard indications for intubation, head trauma, co-ingestions, co-morbidities and clinical instability.  Conclusion:  It is acceptable and standard practice to avoid intubating a select subset of intoxicated and post-seizure emergency department patients despite aspiration risk. Most physicians do not view the dogma of “GCS 8, intubate” as an absolute indication for intubation in these patients. Future research is aimed at identifying key factors and evidence supporting intubation for the prevention of aspiration, as well as the development of a validated clinical decision rule for common emergency presentations.

P055: Canadian emergency physician attitudes toward endotracheal intubation for aspiration prophylaxis