METHODS: This was a randomized crossover trial in a simulated clinical setting to compare the SÜPEVAC unit with standard hospital wall suction. Twenty-two fellows of the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine, the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, or the College of Intensive Care Medicine were recruited. Outcomes were assessed via a structured survey and measuring the time to view the glottis.
RESULTS: This study found there was no significant difference between the SÜPEVAC unit and wall suction with regard to suction time (P = .762; 95% confidence interval, -0.683 to 0.338) or qualitative assessment via the survey.
CONCLUSIONS: The SÜPEVAC unit is comparable with wall suction in a clinical setting. Further research is warranted.
Methods: A child-sized mannequin head was developed to measure light illuminance levels with and without sun-protective equipment, across a wide range of environments in Singapore, outdoors (open park, under a tree, street) and indoors (under a fluorescent illumination with window, under white LED-based lighting without window). A comparison was made between indoor and outdoor light levels that are experienced while children are involved in day-to-day activities.
Results: Outdoor light levels were much higher (11,080-18,176 lux) than indoors (112-156 lux). The higher lux levels protective of myopia (>1000 lux) were measured at the tree shade (5556-7876 lux) and with hat (4112-8156 lux). Sunglasses showed lux levels between 1792 and 6800 lux. Although with sunglasses readings were lower than tree shade and hat, light levels were still 11 to 43 times higher than indoors.
Conclusions: Recommendations on spending time outdoors for myopia prevention with adequate sun protection should be provided while partaking in outdoor activities, including protection under shaded areas, wearing a hat or sunglasses, sunscreen, and adequate hydration.
Translational Relevance: Light levels outdoors were higher than indoors and above the threshold illuminance for myopia prevention even with adequate sun-protective measures.
METHODS: This was an observational manikin-based study. A total of 96 participants as well as two types of mechanical compression devices: Lucas-2 and AutoPulse, performed one minute of continuous chest compression on BT-CPEA programmed manikin while the ambulance travelled at different speeds, i.e., idle state, 30km/hr and 60km/hr. Seven outcome variables of chest compression were measured. Performance data of different groups of compressor were compared and analysed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA).
RESULTS: In manual chest compression, significant variation were noted among different speeds in term of average compression rate (p<0.001), average compression depth (p=0.007), fraction of adequate/insufficient compression depth and fraction of normal hands positioning with p=0.018, 0.022 and 0.034 respectively. Overall, AutoPulse and Lucas-2 were not affected by ambulance speed. Lucas- 2 showed more consistent average compression rate, higher fraction of adequate compression depth and reduced fraction of insufficient compression depth as compared to manual compression with p<0.001, 0.001 and 0.043 respectively.
CONCLUSION: In this study we found that ambulance speed significantly affected certain aspects of manual chest compression most notably compression depth, rate and hand positioning. AutoPulse and Lucas-2 can improve these aspects by providing more consistent compression rate, depth and fraction of adequate compression depth during transport.
METHODS: This was a randomised cross-over study conducted between 9 April to 5 May 2020 in the ED of University Malaya Medical Centre. Postgraduate Emergency Medicine trainees performed video laryngoscope-assisted intubation on an airway manikin with and without an aerosol box in a random order. Contamination was simulated by nebulised Glo Germ. Primary outcome was number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing and post-doffing of PPE of the intubator and assistant. Secondary outcomes were intubation time, Cormack-Lehane score, number of intubation attempts and participants' feedback.
RESULTS: Thirty-six trainees completed the study interventions. The number of contaminated front and back body regions pre-doffing of PPE was significantly higher without the aerosol box (all p values<0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of contaminations post-doffing of PPE between using and not using the aerosol box, with a median contamination of zero. Intubation time was longer with the aerosol box (42.5 s vs 35.5 s, p<0.001). Cormack-Lehane scores were similar with and without the aerosol box. First-pass intubation success rate was 94.4% and 100% with and without the aerosol box, respectively. More participants reported reduced mobility and visibility when intubating with the aerosol box.
CONCLUSIONS: An aerosol box may significantly reduce exposure to contaminations but with increased intubation time and reduced operator's mobility and visibility. Furthermore, the difference in degree of contamination between using and not using an aerosol box could be offset by proper doffing of PPE.