Question: I have a quick question on the PCP supraglottic airway medical directive. What is the rationale for the “must be VSA” condition on the directive for PCP, yet ACP’s can use it as a back-up device for failed airway management. Would it not make more sense to make the conditions for PCP something like “Patient must have a GCS=3 and other airway management is inadequate or ineffective”?

The issue here could be two-fold. First, if BVM ventilation is ineffective as a PCP, there is nothing you can fall back on, whereas the ACP can use either ETI or a SGA as indicated. If this ineffective BVM situation occurs as a PCP and the patient is GCS=3, why can’t we insert a SGA as a rescue device for ineffective BVM ventilation?

Secondly, with some new evidence beginning to show that SGA’s may actually not be as great as we thought in VSA patients, is there a risk we could abandon them entirely from the PCP level, in essence “throwing the baby out with the bathwater” and abandoning a valuable device simply because the conditions for its use were restrictive.

Also, do you have any idea when the new revised BLS standards may be coming out from the MOHLTC? I’m hoping there are new evidence based oxygen therapy guidelines. Any thoughts? Thanks.