Comparison of Airway Intubation Devices When Using a Biohazard Suit: A Feasibility Study

OBJECTIVES: We set out to compare emergency medicine residents\u27 intubating times and success rates for direct laryngoscopy (DL), GlideScope-assisted intubation (GS), and the Supraglottic Airway Laryngopharyngeal Tube (SALT) airway with and without biohazard gear. METHODS: Each resident passed through 2 sets of 3 testing stations (DL, GS, SALT) in succession, intubating Laerdal mannequin heads with the 3 modalities after randomization to start with or without biohazard gear. RESULTS: Thirty-seven residents participated, and 27 were male (73%); 14 (37.8%) had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. There was a statistically significant difference in those who had prior intubation experience between DL (37, 100%), GS (32, 86.5%), and SALT (12, 32.4%) (P \u3c .001) and in median time to intubation (48 seconds, no suit; 57 seconds, with suits) (P = .03). There was no statistically significant difference between the overall times to intubate for the 3 devices. First-pass success was highest for DL (91.2%, no suit; 83.7%, suit) followed by GS (89%, no suit; 78.3%, suit) and SALT (51%, no suit; 67.6%, suit). CONCLUSION: A minority of participants had prior experience intubating in biohazard suits. Use of biohazard suits extends time to successful intubation. There was no difference in time to intubation for the 3 devices, but first-pass success was highest for DL (with or without biohazard gear)

Research Professionals\u27 Perspectives, Barriers, and Recommendations Regarding Minority Participation in Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to investigate research professionals\u27 perspectives regarding minority participation in clinical trials. METHODS: A web-based survey of research professionals at US institutions receiving NIH and/or AHRQ funding to conduct clinical research in 2013. Descriptive statistics, mean, standard deviation (SD), and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test were utilized for analysis. RESULTS: Distributed were 13,041 surveys with 967 (7.4%) responses. Overall and race-stratified analyses included 633 and 521 surveys, respectively. A majority agreed that patients\u27 race (mean, 3.4; SD = 1.0) and primary language (mean, 4.0; SD = 0.9) have an effect on enrollment. They had more success in enrolling those whose primary language was the same as their own (mean, 3.8; SD = 1.0), and that a language barrier and time spent arranging for interpreters had prevented them from offering a study to potential candidates (mean, 3.2; SD = 1.2). Non-Caucasian respondents were more likely to agree that fear of unknown side effects was a deterrent for minorities (p \u3c 0.01), minorities are more likely to be unavailable for follow-up phone calls (p = 0.07), and the unavailability of translated material discourages non-English speakers from participation (p = 0.08). They also were more likely to be neutral or agree with being discouraged from enrolling minorities because of the possibility of their withdrawal or being less likely to be available for phone follow-ups and follow-up visits (all p \u3c 0.01). CONCLUSION: Despite a few subtle racial differences in research professionals\u27 perspectives, a majority expressed no hesitation in enrolling minorities. Patients\u27 race and primary language appeared to influence enrollment. A language barrier appeared to be the strongest barrier for research professionals