Asset Details
Do you wish to reserve the book?
Respiratory Protection During Simulated Emergency Pediatric Life Support: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Study
Hey, we have placed the reservation for you!
By the way, why not check out events that you can attend while you pick your title.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place the reservation. Kindly try again later.
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
Respiratory Protection During Simulated Emergency Pediatric Life Support: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Study
Do you wish to request the book?
Respiratory Protection During Simulated Emergency Pediatric Life Support: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Study
Please be aware that the book you have requested cannot be checked out. If you would like to checkout this book, you can reserve another copy
We have requested the book for you!
Your request is successful and it will be processed during the Library working hours. Please check the status of your request in My Requests.
Oops! Something went wrong.
Looks like we were not able to place your request. Kindly try again later.
Journal Article
Respiratory Protection During Simulated Emergency Pediatric Life Support: A Randomized, Controlled, Crossover Study
2013
Overview
Emergency pediatric life support (EPLS) of children infected with transmissible respiratory diseases requires adequate respiratory protection for medical first responders. Conventional air-purifying respirators (APR) and modern loose-fitting powered air-purifying respirator-hoods (PAPR-hood) may have a different impact during pediatric resuscitation and therefore require evaluation.
This study investigated the influence of APRs and PAPR-hoods during simulated pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation.
Study design was a randomized, controlled, crossover study. Sixteen paramedics carried out a standardized EPLS scenario inside an ambulance, either unprotected (control) or wearing a conventional APR or a PAPR-hood. Treatment times and wearer comfort were determined and compared.
All paramedics completed the treatment objectives of the study arms without adverse events. Study subjects reported that communication, dexterity and mobility were significantly better in the APR group, whereas the heat-build-up was significantly less in the PAPR-hood group. Treatment times compared to the control group did not significantly differ for the APR group but did with the PAPR-hood group (261±12 seconds for the controls, 275±9 seconds for the conventional APR and 286±13 seconds for the PAPR-hood group, P < .05.
APRs showed a trend to better treatment times compared to PAPR-hoods during simulated pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Study participants rated mobility, ease of communication and dexterity with the tight-fitting APR system significantly better compared to the loose-fitting PAPR-hood.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press,Jems Publishing Company, Inc
Subject
/ Cardiopulmonary resuscitation
/ Child
/ CPR
/ Emergency Medical Services - manpower
/ Emergency Medical Services - methods
/ Emergency Medical Services - organization & administration
/ Humans
/ Infectious Disease Transmission, Patient-to-Professional - prevention & control
/ Life Support Care - standards
/ London
/ Manikins
/ Occupational Exposure - prevention & control
/ Respiratory Protective Devices - adverse effects
/ Respiratory Protective Devices - standards
/ Respiratory Tract Infections - prevention & control
