No abstract

Objective This study evaluated physician preferences and values related to the most commonly used (traditional) powered intraosseous (IO) system and a novel powered IO system featuring a passive safety needle, battery life indicator, and snap‐securement/skin attachment. Methods Emergency physicians participated in an IO simulation using both the traditional and novel IO systems. Participants completed a 27‐item postsimulation questionnaire to state their preferences toward each IO system and values related to the novel IO system features using a multiple choice, 11‐point value ranking scale (0 = no value, 10 = extremely valuable) and free‐text answer questions. Results Among the 22 study participants, 90.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 70.8%, 98.9%) preferred the novel IO system; top reasons for this preference were the novel IO system's passive safety needle and snap‐securement/skin attachment. Participants who preferred the traditional IO system (9.1%) noted its ease of use and familiarity. Many physicians preferred the novel IO system's needle (81.8%; 95% CI: 59.7%, 94.8%), powered driver (77.3%; 95% CI: 54.6%, 92.2%), and snap‐securement/skin attachment (100%; 95% CI: 84.6%, 100%) compared with the traditional IO system. Safety and ease of use were the most common preference explanations. Of the participants, 100% provided a value score ≥7 for the novel IO system's passive safety needle (mean score, 9.45), whereas fewer participants (59.1%) gave a value score ≥7 for the multilight battery life indicator (mean score, 6.68). Conclusion This study demonstrates that emergency physicians prefer and value a novel IO system with features that enhance safety and ease of use. These results provide insight into important factors related to IO systems for emergency physicians.

No abstract