We aimed to determine the feasibility of quality indicators (QIs) for prehospital advanced airway management (PAAM) from a provider point of view.

The study is a survey based feasibility assessment following field testing of QIs for PAAM.

The study was performed in two physician staffed emergency medical services in Switzerland.

42 of the 44 emergency physicians who completed at least one case report form (CRF) dedicated to the collection of the QIs on PAAM between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2021 participated in the study.

The data required to calculate the 17 QIs was systematically collected through a dedicated electronic CRF.

Primary outcomes were provider-related feasibility criteria: relevance and acceptance of the QIs, as well as reliability of the data collection. Secondary outcomes were effort to collect specific data and to complete the CRF.

Over the study period, 470 CRFs were completed, with a median of 11 per physician (IQR 4–17; range 1–48). The median time to complete the CRF was 7 min (IQR 3–16) and was considered reasonable by 95% of the physicians. Overall, 75% of the physicians assessed the set of QIs to be relevant, and 74% accepted that the set of QIs assessed the quality of PAAM. The reliability of data collection was rated as good or excellent for each of the 17 QIs, with the lowest rated for the following 3 QIs: duration of preoxygenation, duration of laryngoscopy and occurrence of desaturation during laryngoscopy.

Collection of QIs on PAAM appears feasible. Electronic medical records and technological solutions facilitating automatic collection of vital parameters and timing during the procedure could improve the reliability of data collection for some QIs. Studies in other services are needed to determine the external validity of our results.

Core outcome sets (COSs) are agreed outcomes (domains (subdomains) and instruments) that should be measured as a minimum in clinical trials or practice in certain diseases or clinical fields. Worldwide, the number of COSs is increasing and there might be conceptual overlaps of domains (subdomains) and instruments within disciplines. The aim of this scoping review is to map and to classify all outcomes identified with COS projects relating to skin diseases.

We will conduct a scoping review of outcomes of skin disease-related COS initiatives to identify all concepts and their definitions. We will search PubMed, Embase and Cochrane library. The search dates will be 1 January 2010 (the point at which Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) was established) to 1 January 2024. We will also review the COMET database and C3 website to identify parts of COSs (domains and/or instruments) that are being developed and published. This review will be supplemented by querying relevant stakeholders from COS organisations, dermatology organisations and patient organisations for additional COSs that were developed. The resulting long lists of outcomes will then be mapped into conceptually similar concepts.

This study was supported by departmental research funds from the Department of Dermatology at Northwestern University. An ethics committee review was waived since this protocol was done by staff researchers with no involvement of patient care. Conflicts of interests, if any, will be addressed by replacing participants with relevant conflicts or reassigning them. The results will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals, social media posts and promotion by COS organisations.