Research
Print page Print page
Switch language
The Capital Region of Denmark - a part of Copenhagen University Hospital
Published

Reasons for not using intraosseous access in critical illness

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

DOI

  1. A simple clinical assessment is superior to systematic triage in prediction of mortality in the emergency department

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Is there a diurnal difference in mortality of severely injured trauma patients?

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  3. Is air transport of stroke patients faster than ground transport? A prospective controlled observational study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  1. A novel technique for determining the correct length of tunneled catheters

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  2. Do Financial Incentives Increase Doctors' Willingness to Publish Research? - A Pilot Study of 21 Junior Doctors

    Research output: Contribution to journalLetterResearchpeer-review

  3. Challenges in the use of intraosseous access

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  4. Challenges in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest-a study combining closed-circuit television (CCTV) and medical emergency calls

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

  5. Current use of ultrasound for central vascular access in children and infants in the Nordic countries--a cross-sectional study

    Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

View graph of relations
Aim To identify reasons for not using intraosseous access (IO) when intravenous access is difficult during resuscitation. Methods Questionnaire made available to members of selected Scandinavian medical societies. Results Of 759 responders to the questionnaire, 23.5% (n=178) had experienced one or more situations where there was a need for IO but none was placed. The most common stated reasons for not performing IO were a lack of equipment (48.3%), a lack of knowledge about the procedure (32.6%), and intravenous access preferred over IO (23.0%). Conclusions The main reasons for not using IO were lack of equipment and lack of training. The authors recommend increased training in IO use and greater availability of IO equipment for front-line staff in Scandinavian countries. The use of non-purpose-designed needles for IO should be evaluated.
Original languageEnglish
JournalEmergency Medicine Journal
Volume29
Issue number6
Pages (from-to)506-7
ISSN1472-0205
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012

ID: 31040676