We have located links that may give you full text access.
Journal Article
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Validation of an Assessment Tool for Field Endotracheal Intubation.
Military Medicine 2016 November
OBJECTIVES: Endotracheal intubation (ETI) is an important skill for all emergency providers; our ability to train and assess our learners is integral to providing optimal patient care. The primary aim of this study was to assess the inter-rater reliability (IRR) and discriminant validity of a novel field ETI assessment tool using a checklist-derived performance score (PS) and critical failure (CF) rate.
METHODS: Forty-three participants (18 paramedic students, 11 paramedics, and 14 emergency physicians [EPs]) performed ETI during a simulated trauma scenario on a pseudo-ventilated cadaver. Each participant was assessed by two experienced raters. IRR was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Regarding discriminant validity, a Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze PSs and a χ2 test was used for CFs. Mean global rating scale (GRS) scores were compared using an analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The ETI assessment tool had excellent IRR, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94. There was a significant difference in PSs, CFs, and GRSs (p < 0.05) between cohorts.
CONCLUSION: The novel field ETI assessment tool has excellent reliability among trained raters and discriminates between experienced ETI providers (EPs) and less experienced ETI performers using PSs, CFs, and GRSs on a fresh cadaveric model.
METHODS: Forty-three participants (18 paramedic students, 11 paramedics, and 14 emergency physicians [EPs]) performed ETI during a simulated trauma scenario on a pseudo-ventilated cadaver. Each participant was assessed by two experienced raters. IRR was calculated using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Regarding discriminant validity, a Kruskal-Wallis test was used to analyze PSs and a χ2 test was used for CFs. Mean global rating scale (GRS) scores were compared using an analysis of variance.
RESULTS: The ETI assessment tool had excellent IRR, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.94. There was a significant difference in PSs, CFs, and GRSs (p < 0.05) between cohorts.
CONCLUSION: The novel field ETI assessment tool has excellent reliability among trained raters and discriminates between experienced ETI providers (EPs) and less experienced ETI performers using PSs, CFs, and GRSs on a fresh cadaveric model.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app