A randomized trial comparing two intraosseous access devices in intrahospital healthcare providers with a focus on retention of knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy

Introduction Intraosseous access is recommended in vitally compromised patients if an intravenous access cannot be easily obtained. Intraosseous infusion can be initiated by various healthcare providers. Currently, there are two mechanical intraosseous devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Admi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007) 2014-10, Vol.40 (5), p.581-586
Main Authors: Derikx, H. J. G. M., Gerritse, B. M., Gans, R., van der Meer, N. J. M.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anesthesiology
Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
CPR
Critical Care Medicine
Emergency Medicine
Intensive
Medical equipment
Medical personnel
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Occupational training
Original Article
Self-efficacy
Sports Medicine
Surgery
Surgical Orthopedics
Traumatic Surgery
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Introduction Intraosseous access is recommended in vitally compromised patients if an intravenous access cannot be easily obtained. Intraosseous infusion can be initiated by various healthcare providers. Currently, there are two mechanical intraosseous devices approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in adults and children. A comparison is made in this study of the theoretical and practical performance by anesthesiologists and registered nurses of anesthesia (RNAs) in the use of the battery-powered device (device A) versus the spring-loaded needle device (device B). This study entailed a 12-month follow-up of knowledge, skill retention, and self-efficacy measured by standardized testing. Methods A prospective randomized trial was performed, initially comparing 15 anesthesiologists and 15 RNAs, both on using the two types of intraosseous devices. A structured lecture and skill station was given with the educational aids provided by the respective manufacturers. Individual knowledge and practical skills were tested at 0, 3, and 12 months after the initial course. Results There was no statistical significant difference in the retention of theoretical knowledge between RNAs and anesthesiologists on all testing occasions. However, the self-efficacy of the anesthesiologists is significantly higher ( p  
ISSN:1863-9933
1863-9941
DOI:10.1007/s00068-014-0385-8