Intubation dogpile

[Guest guest]

>>> If we aren't impacting mortality levels of those who need it most, then just

what are we doing? This begs the question of should we be worrying about

advanced airway procedures at all if it's not going to change outcomes,

irregardless of how well we do them or how much scene time it takes to do them.

<<<

It is clear that your last name is Sharp for a reason.

If suddenly tomorrow, some EMS instructor found a foolproof way to teach and

perform field intubations so that failure or misplacement was IMPOSSIBLE, we

still have no evidence that properly placed tubes in the field are beneficial to

the outcome of patients.

For the group . . . imagine that you are in the hospital undergoing an

evaluation for an unknown medical problem and the physician walks into the room

with this proposition . . .

Sir, the medical staff has decided that we need to take you into surgery to

perform a procedure. I am here to explain the procedure and gain consent.

First, there is absolutely no evidence that the procedure I want to perform will

benefit you in any way.

Second, if I perform the procedure, there is 25%-35% chance that I will create a

situation from which you cannot possibly recover.

Finally, I need you to sign this consent form in order for me to perform the

procedure.

How many of us would sign?

If it was possible to explain the evidence-based risks and benefits of

endotracheal intubation to our patients, how many would consent to the

procedure.

If we let our humanity guide our decisions (instead of our hubris), the fate of

endotracheal intubation in the prehospital world seems clear.

Kenny Navarro

Dallas