Assessing the New Norm: A Simulation Study to Assess Pediatric Emergency Physician Success in Critical Procedures with an Air Purifying Respirator

Introduction Physicians caring for patients with COVID-19 are at high risk for contracting the disease, thus, significant emphasis has been placed on personal protective equipment (PPE). The study aims to assess the impact of advanced PPE across 4 common procedures: endotracheal intubation, bag-valve mask ventilation, intraosseous (IO) insertion, and lumbar puncture (LP) performed by pediatric emergency physicians. Method Physicians performed the procedures in a simulated environment. Lumbar puncture and IO were performed with standard precautions versus an air purifying respirator (APR). A direct comparison was drawn for endotracheal intubation and bag-valve mask ventilation between 2 commonly used APRs. Success rate and number of attempts toward successful completion was recorded for all 4 procedures. Physicians filled out a postprocedure survey to assess their ease of use of the APR. Results Twenty participants performed IO and LP using an APR and standard precautions. There was no statistical difference in the success rate, number of attempts, average time, or maintenance of sterility (LP only) for both procedures. Twenty total participants divided across 2 types of APR groups performed intubation and BMV. Success rate and number of attempts had no statistical difference for both procedures. Physician feedback surveys to assess the ease of use of APR compared with standard precautions had no statistically significant difference for all 4 procedures. Conclusions Wearing increased levels of PPE did not impact procedural success, length of time, sterility, number of attempts, or the physicians' ease in our study. Physicians should be encouraged to wear all appropriate PPE.