Loading…
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...
Saved in:
| Published in: | European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007) 2014-10, Vol.40 (5), p.581-586 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , , , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| 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!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8f8a3322debe6f24bcf11ce6d56eee6f90dd3a1e04dbc980f76d99f6d67a32153 |
|---|---|
| cites | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8f8a3322debe6f24bcf11ce6d56eee6f90dd3a1e04dbc980f76d99f6d67a32153 |
| container_end_page | 586 |
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 581 |
| container_title | European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007) |
| container_volume | 40 |
| creator | Derikx, H. J. G. M. Gerritse, B. M. Gans, R. van der Meer, N. J. M. |
| description | 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
|
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00068-014-0385-8 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1761460352</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3461861441</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8f8a3322debe6f24bcf11ce6d56eee6f90dd3a1e04dbc980f76d99f6d67a32153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhSMEoj_wAGyQJTYsGvDYieMsq6r8SJXYwNrytce9bp042L69al-HF8VXKRVCYuWR55szxz5N8wboB6B0-JgppUK2FLqWctm38llzDFLwdhw7eP5Uc37UnOR8U2EqevayOWJCQtdDf9z8OidJzzZO_gEtKcnrQEycFp38fE3KPhI_l6Rjzhh3mWhjMGdi8c7XovbW9jbmxZc6ukUdytbohGRJ8c5bTJnsfdkSTVw0VSHOJGHBufhaRUdu57gPaK_xjORbH8IZqXZIxuBadM4bbe5fNS-cDhlfP56nzY9Pl98vvrRX3z5_vTi_ak3XsdJKJzXnjFncoHCs2xgHYFDYXiDWm5FayzUg7ezGjJK6QdhxdMKKQXMGPT9t3q-61frPHeaiJp8NhqDnw-MVDAI6QXnPKvruH_Qm7tJc3SkQwEAMfBCVgpUyqX5gQqeW5Ced7hVQdUhQrQmqmqA6JKhknXn7qLzbTGifJv5EVgG2Ank5ZITpr9X_Vf0NbiSqPg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1612167376</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A randomized trial comparing two intraosseous access devices in intrahospital healthcare providers with a focus on retention of knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy</title><source>Springer Nature</source><creator>Derikx, H. J. G. M. ; Gerritse, B. M. ; Gans, R. ; van der Meer, N. J. M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Derikx, H. J. G. M. ; Gerritse, B. M. ; Gans, R. ; van der Meer, N. J. M.</creatorcontrib><description>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
< 0.01) than the self-efficacy of the RNAs for both devices, on any testing occasion. Insufficient skills were local disinfection (both groups, both devices) and attachment of the needle to the intravenous line (RNAs with both devices). In 33 % of all device B handlings, unsafe practice occurred.
Conclusion
The use of device A is safer in handling in comparison to device B at 12 months follow-up. The hypothesis that doctors are more qualified in obtaining intraosseous access has been disproven, as anesthesiologists were as successful as RNAs. However, the low self-efficacy of RNAs in the use of intraosseous devices could diminish the chance of them actually using one.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1863-9933</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1863-9941</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00068-014-0385-8</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26814515</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>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</subject><ispartof>European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007), 2014-10, Vol.40 (5), p.581-586</ispartof><rights>Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8f8a3322debe6f24bcf11ce6d56eee6f90dd3a1e04dbc980f76d99f6d67a32153</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8f8a3322debe6f24bcf11ce6d56eee6f90dd3a1e04dbc980f76d99f6d67a32153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26814515$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Derikx, H. J. G. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerritse, B. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gans, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Meer, N. J. M.</creatorcontrib><title>A randomized trial comparing two intraosseous access devices in intrahospital healthcare providers with a focus on retention of knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy</title><title>European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007)</title><addtitle>Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg</addtitle><addtitle>Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg</addtitle><description>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
< 0.01) than the self-efficacy of the RNAs for both devices, on any testing occasion. Insufficient skills were local disinfection (both groups, both devices) and attachment of the needle to the intravenous line (RNAs with both devices). In 33 % of all device B handlings, unsafe practice occurred.
Conclusion
The use of device A is safer in handling in comparison to device B at 12 months follow-up. The hypothesis that doctors are more qualified in obtaining intraosseous access has been disproven, as anesthesiologists were as successful as RNAs. However, the low self-efficacy of RNAs in the use of intraosseous devices could diminish the chance of them actually using one.</description><subject>Anesthesiology</subject><subject>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation</subject><subject>CPR</subject><subject>Critical Care Medicine</subject><subject>Emergency Medicine</subject><subject>Intensive</subject><subject>Medical equipment</subject><subject>Medical personnel</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Occupational training</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Self-efficacy</subject><subject>Sports Medicine</subject><subject>Surgery</subject><subject>Surgical Orthopedics</subject><subject>Traumatic Surgery</subject><issn>1863-9933</issn><issn>1863-9941</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2014</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp1kc1u1TAQhSMEoj_wAGyQJTYsGvDYieMsq6r8SJXYwNrytce9bp042L69al-HF8VXKRVCYuWR55szxz5N8wboB6B0-JgppUK2FLqWctm38llzDFLwdhw7eP5Uc37UnOR8U2EqevayOWJCQtdDf9z8OidJzzZO_gEtKcnrQEycFp38fE3KPhI_l6Rjzhh3mWhjMGdi8c7XovbW9jbmxZc6ukUdytbohGRJ8c5bTJnsfdkSTVw0VSHOJGHBufhaRUdu57gPaK_xjORbH8IZqXZIxuBadM4bbe5fNS-cDhlfP56nzY9Pl98vvrRX3z5_vTi_ak3XsdJKJzXnjFncoHCs2xgHYFDYXiDWm5FayzUg7ezGjJK6QdhxdMKKQXMGPT9t3q-61frPHeaiJp8NhqDnw-MVDAI6QXnPKvruH_Qm7tJc3SkQwEAMfBCVgpUyqX5gQqeW5Ced7hVQdUhQrQmqmqA6JKhknXn7qLzbTGifJv5EVgG2Ank5ZITpr9X_Vf0NbiSqPg</recordid><startdate>20141001</startdate><enddate>20141001</enddate><creator>Derikx, H. J. G. M.</creator><creator>Gerritse, B. M.</creator><creator>Gans, R.</creator><creator>van der Meer, N. J. M.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20141001</creationdate><title>A randomized trial comparing two intraosseous access devices in intrahospital healthcare providers with a focus on retention of knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy</title><author>Derikx, H. J. G. M. ; Gerritse, B. M. ; Gans, R. ; van der Meer, N. J. M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8f8a3322debe6f24bcf11ce6d56eee6f90dd3a1e04dbc980f76d99f6d67a32153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2014</creationdate><topic>Anesthesiology</topic><topic>Cardiopulmonary resuscitation</topic><topic>CPR</topic><topic>Critical Care Medicine</topic><topic>Emergency Medicine</topic><topic>Intensive</topic><topic>Medical equipment</topic><topic>Medical personnel</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Occupational training</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Self-efficacy</topic><topic>Sports Medicine</topic><topic>Surgery</topic><topic>Surgical Orthopedics</topic><topic>Traumatic Surgery</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Derikx, H. J. G. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gerritse, B. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gans, R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van der Meer, N. J. M.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>AUTh Library subscriptions: ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>ProQuest research library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Derikx, H. J. G. M.</au><au>Gerritse, B. M.</au><au>Gans, R.</au><au>van der Meer, N. J. M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A randomized trial comparing two intraosseous access devices in intrahospital healthcare providers with a focus on retention of knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy</atitle><jtitle>European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007)</jtitle><stitle>Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg</stitle><addtitle>Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg</addtitle><date>2014-10-01</date><risdate>2014</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>581</spage><epage>586</epage><pages>581-586</pages><issn>1863-9933</issn><eissn>1863-9941</eissn><abstract>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
< 0.01) than the self-efficacy of the RNAs for both devices, on any testing occasion. Insufficient skills were local disinfection (both groups, both devices) and attachment of the needle to the intravenous line (RNAs with both devices). In 33 % of all device B handlings, unsafe practice occurred.
Conclusion
The use of device A is safer in handling in comparison to device B at 12 months follow-up. The hypothesis that doctors are more qualified in obtaining intraosseous access has been disproven, as anesthesiologists were as successful as RNAs. However, the low self-efficacy of RNAs in the use of intraosseous devices could diminish the chance of them actually using one.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>26814515</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00068-014-0385-8</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1863-9933 |
| ispartof | European journal of trauma and emergency surgery (Munich : 2007), 2014-10, Vol.40 (5), p.581-586 |
| issn | 1863-9933 1863-9941 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1761460352 |
| source | Springer Nature |
| 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 |
| title | A randomized trial comparing two intraosseous access devices in intrahospital healthcare providers with a focus on retention of knowledge, skill, and self-efficacy |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T17%3A06%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20randomized%20trial%20comparing%20two%20intraosseous%20access%20devices%20in%20intrahospital%20healthcare%20providers%20with%20a%20focus%20on%20retention%20of%20knowledge,%20skill,%20and%20self-efficacy&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20trauma%20and%20emergency%20surgery%20(Munich%20:%202007)&rft.au=Derikx,%20H.%20J.%20G.%20M.&rft.date=2014-10-01&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=581&rft.epage=586&rft.pages=581-586&rft.issn=1863-9933&rft.eissn=1863-9941&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00068-014-0385-8&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3461861441%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c442t-8f8a3322debe6f24bcf11ce6d56eee6f90dd3a1e04dbc980f76d99f6d67a32153%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1612167376&rft_id=info:pmid/26814515&rfr_iscdi=true |