Abstract
Background While medical advances for in-hospital care rapidly evolve, a mainstay of effective pre-hospital care remains the ability to treat medical emergencies such as anaphylaxis, overdosing, and/or uncontrolled bleeding through rapid administration of appropriate medication. Therefore, investigators looked at various injection methods and their possible utility in medical emergencies.
Method 30 participants were asked to inject ‘medication’ that mimicked three different methods of injection: 1) autoinjectors, 2) prefilled syringes, and 3) traditional standard syringes using clinical scenarios. Three variables that were measured in the study were: the time required to complete the injection, the perceived difficulties, and the participant’s performance errors.
Results The perceived difficulty and injection time for the autoinjector device were statistically significantly lower compared to prefilled syringes and standard syringes. No significant difference in errors were seen between platforms.
Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first study to quantify the gain of efficiency when comparing autoinjectors to other methods of medication administration, like prefilled syringes or drawing medication from vials for administration. The clinical implications of the noted differences are not clear at this time. Many potential limitations exist, including the size of the study, the use of non-clinical participants, the immediate use of platforms after training, and the lack of applied stress in the environment.
Conclusion This study compares autoinjectors to other methods of medication administration; prefilled syringes and standard syringes. Further study in larger datasets with clinicians and/or military personnel is required to compare these platforms in various environments. The outcome of this project provides insights into the relative efficiencies of treating medical emergencies such as anaphylaxis, overdosing, and/or uncontrolled bleeding.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT05367531
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Chair, DRDC Human Research Ethics Committee, email: HREC-CEESH-Toronto@drdc.rddc.gc.ca; (416) 635-2000, ext. 3141. 1133 Sheppard Avenue West Toronto, Ontario, M3K 2C9
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript
