Talk:Tracheal intubation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Magill and Macintosh links

Magill and Macintosh links didn't go anywhere relevant. Someone should probably add citation or appropriate link. MKV 06:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I have removed them for now, and put them here on the talk page. Whilst I don't particularly disagree with much of what is said, it is important that it is properly referenced, and presented in an encyclopaedic manner (i.e. the "warning" to over 80s). Perhaps other editors can help with this? --John24601 10:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Content is accurate and sources were cited, the added content is significantly more relavent to those on the tube-end seeking medical research on the topic then the technical aspects previously on the page; it is not discussion. I reformatted the part John24601 mentions as questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.198.87 (talk • contribs)

I'm still not happy... I can't see any proper citing of references, and I'm not convinced that it is NPOV or particularly encyclopaedic either, however I'll leave it pending the opinion of others --John24601 19:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with John24601 and have again reverted the changes.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the medical industry is attempting to sensor the reality of how ineffective inutbation is in elderly patients, by repeatedly deleting the sections about RISKS. Other than nurses in training like John24601 or others in the medical profession MOST people coming to this page will want to read about the risks. Almost everybody will read the risks on a bottle of medication before the ingredients since most people will not be familiar with the names of the ingredients. Just the same, most will care significantly more about the risks then the process, that makes the comments relavent. If you think something is wrong, then correct it; but if you have nothing to add then don't just delete it because medical school has not taught it to you yet. That is rude and by restricting information to only the positive aspects you may be jeapordizing people's lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.198.87 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry you feel frustrated. However, your edits are not conforming to Wikipedia policies. Specifically, Wikipedia:Verifiability says "The burden of evidence lies with the editors who have made an edit or wish an edit to remain." You have repeatedly failed to provide any references for the statements you are adding. In addition, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view mandates a point of view "neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject". Please take some time to carefully consider these policies and try making edits more in line with the Wikipedia paradigm.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 08:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I too, am sorry that you feel frustrated. I have already said that I do, on a personal and professional basis, agree with the thrust of most of what you say. It is perfectly proper to talk about the risks associated with intubation, because, as you say, it is not the medical cure-all which some make it out be. It's really all about presentation, and what is considered encyclopaedic. --John24601 16:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

John, rather than just sensor it so that nobody gets the information it would be nice if you edited it to make it encyclopaedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.198.87 (talk • contribs)

As I pointed out, the burden is on you to meet the standards of Wikipedia.  — JVinocur (talk • contribs) 02:27, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Heck, I'm as big a proponent of DNI orders as anyone but the additions to the article simply are not true and have not been referenced. Painting a realistic picture is important. What is being asserted in the edits is not realistic. InvictaHOG 09:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

InvictaHOG, watch a few elderly people get intubated and you will see the statements are true in entirety. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.198.87 (talk • contribs)

Statistics section

I removed the statistics section that was added because it cited no sources, made what appeared to be original research claims and was just basically confusing. With proper inline citations it could be useful if it is indeed factual. Along those lines, this whole article is in pretty rough shape. With a topic of this type, inline citations should be used for every assertion of a medical fact. There are references at the bottom, but it is unknown what assertions they are for.Patrick Berry 19:05, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

With regard to who performs intubation

I removed this comment:

As a general rule, only paramedics and qualified physicians perform intubation.

I'm not sure this is a fair comment. In some states, EMT-basics can intubate (whether or not they should be allowed to attempt is another matter). In addition, there are CRNAs and respiratory therapists. I personally don't see the value in this comment, which seems unnecessarily elitist, and may not be true for all countries and locations. In addition, the way it was added made it look like reference supported it, but that reference was for the preceding comment. Regards, MoodyGroove 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I found a second reference further in the document to "doctors and paramedics can intubate when" and changed it to "practitioners" since the list of people who can obtain intubation certification is high. I'm a registered respiratory therapist, for example, and I can intubate (though I cannot give the drugs necessary for an RSI, so if I want to RSI the patient I need a physician's assistant, nurse practitioner, physician, or other member present who can order drugs). I also disagree with the 'qualified physicians' portion: in every facility where I've participated in intubation, many physicians attempting intubation (especially in emergency situations where the fast capture of an airway is critical) who are less qualified, or generally who lack skill in intubation, often use the experience as practice. Wrin (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

It has been suggested that Tracheoscopic Ventilation Tube be merged into the technology section.

• Opposed. Adding video laryngoscopy is one thing, adding a specific commercial device of questionable notability is another. MoodyGroove 22:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Having received no other replies one way or the other, I have deleted the merge template as the device is not particularly notable. MoodyGroove 22:04, 28 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

I also nominated the TVT article for deletion. MoodyGroove 22:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Gold Standard

"tracheal intubation's role as the "gold standard" of advanced airway maintenance was downplayed" is cited but the contradictory statement "Endotracheal Intubation is still the Gold Standard in airway care" isn't. Could someone familiar with the topic provide some insight/citation/edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngaskill (talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)