The ETI Study (again)

[Guest guest]

Looking at the text of the report related to that pedi ETI study, one notices that they themselves point out possible problems with the results and conclusions. I won't go into the details — I suggest everyone go back and re-read that themselves — but it seems obvious that there are several possible interpretations of the results they got other than the one calling for pedi intubation to be removed from the paramedic scope of practice. There may be training and continued proficiency issues. Maybe what is needed is a better way to maintain practical competency between emergencies. Maybe the solution is not to deny patients the potential benefits of having positive airway control available in the field, but instead to find a better approach to maintaining the practical competency of the medics.

In any case, because of the deficiencies the group performing the study mentioned themselves, I would consider this study invalid until it is reproduced elsewhere and until other possible issues that could have produced the final data have been explored. For instance, they should have three groups in the study; the two they had before and a third whose members underwent some type of continual proficiency maintenance procedure during the study. If the results are still the same, THEN it might be reasonable to assume the problem is with the value of the procedure rather than with the proficiency of the specific group of medics involved in the study. After all, California medics are a lot newer to intubation than most of the rest of us are. As it is, this study appears to me to present more questions than it answers. Hopefully, none of our Texas medical directors will jump to any rash conclusions as a result of this study, but I suspect they are too savvy for that.

Dave