Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 42, Issue 1 , Pages 81-87, July 2003

Patient safety in emergency airway management and rapid sequence intubation: Metaphorical lessons from skydiving☆☆

Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA.

Received 6 September 2002; received in revised form 20 November 2002 and 11 December 2002; accepted 16 December 2002.

Address for correspondence: Richard M. Levitan, MD, Department of Emergency Medicine, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, 3400 Spruce Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104; 215-662-7260; E-mail levitanr@mail.med.upenn.edu.

Abstract 

Concern about patient safety and failed rapid sequence intubation has led to an increased awareness of potentially difficult laryngoscopy situations and algorithms promoting techniques in awake patients. Given the low overall incidence of failed laryngoscopy, however, prediction of difficult laryngoscopy has poor positive predictive value and uncertain clinical utility, especially in emergency settings. Non-rapid sequence intubation approaches have comparatively lower chances of intubation success, require more time, and are associated with more complications. As a specialty, emergency medicine has adopted rapid sequence intubation as the mainstay of emergency airway treatment for many appropriate reasons; the problem that must be addressed is how patient safety can be ensured while what is an inherently dangerous procedure is performed. A novel way to conceptualize patient risk and safety issues in rapid sequence intubation is to examine how inherent risk is managed in skydiving. Metaphorical lessons from skydiving that are applicable to rapid sequence intubation include (1) a redundancy of safety; (2) a methodic approach to primary chute deployment; (3) use of backup chutes that are fast, simple, and easy to deploy; (4) attention to monitoring; and (5) equipment vigilance. This article reviews how each of these lessons apply metaphorically to rapid sequence intubation, wherein the primary chute is laryngoscopy, the backup chute is rescue ventilation, and monitoring involves pulse oximetry. [Ann Emerg Med. 2003;42:81-87.]

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

 The author reports this study did not receive any outside funding or support.

☆☆ Reprints not available from the author.

PII: S0196-0644(03)00340-8

doi:10.1067/mem.2003.254

Annals of Emergency Medicine
Volume 42, Issue 1 , Pages 81-87, July 2003