Simulation of difficult airway management for residents: prospective comparative study
Simulação de manejo de via aérea difícil para residentes: estudo comparativo prospectivo
Marc Lilot, Jean-Noel Evaind, Alban Vincent a, Guillain Gaillarda, Dominique Chassarda, Laurent Mattatia, Jacques Ripart, Lucas Denoyel, Christian Bauer, Philip Robinsone, Antoine Duclos , Jean-Jacques Lehot, Thomas Rimmelé
Abstract
Background and objectives: Procedural simulation training for difficult airway management offers acquisition opportunities. The hypothesis was that 3 hours of procedural simulation training for difficult airway management improves: acquisition, behavior, and patient outcomes as reported 6 months later. Methods: This prospective comparative study took place in two medical universities. Secondyear residents of anesthesiology and intensive care from one region participated in 3 h procedural simulation (intervention group). No intervention was scheduled for their peers from the other region (control). Prior to simulation and 6 months later, residents filled-out the same self-assessment form collecting experience with different devices. The control group filled-out the same forms simultaneously. The primary endpoint was the frequency of use of each difficult airway management device within groups at 6 months. Secondary endpoints included modifications of knowledge, skills, and patient outcomes with each device at 6 months. Intervention cost assessment was provided. Results: 44 residents were included in the intervention group and 16 in the control group. No significant difference was observed for the primary endpoint. In the intervention group, improvement of knowledge and skills was observed at 6 months for each device, and improvement of patient outcomes was observed with the use of malleable intubation stylet and Eschmann introducer. No such improvement was observed in the control group. Estimated intervention cost was 406D per resident. Conclusions: A 3 h procedural simulation training for difficult airway management did not improve the frequency of use of devices at 6 months by residents. However, other positive effects suggest exploring the best ratio of time/acquisition efficiency with difficult airway management simulation. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02470195.
Keywords
Resumo
Justificativa e objetivos: O treinamento em simulação para o manejo de via aérea difícil oferece oportunidades de aprendizagem. A hipótese foi que um treinamento em simulação de procedimentos de três horas, para o manejo de via aérea difícil, melhoraria o aprendizado, o comportamento e os resultados dos pacientes, conforme relatado seis meses após o treinamento. Métodos: Este estudo comparativo prospectivo foi realizado em duas universidades médicas. Residentes do segundo ano de anestesiologia e terapia intensiva de uma região participaram de um curso de três horas em simulação de procedimentos (grupo intervenção). Nenhuma intervenção foi programada para seus pares da outra região (grupo controle). Antes da simulação e seis meses após, os residentes preencheram a mesma ficha de autoavaliação sobre sua experiência com diferentes dispositivos. O grupo controle preencheu os mesmos formulários simultaneamente. O desfecho primário foi a frequência de uso de cada dispositivo para o manejo de via aérea difícil dentro dos grupos aos seis meses. Os pontos de corte secundários incluíram modificações em relação ao conhecimento, às habilidades e aos resultados dos pacientes com cada dispositivo aos seis meses. A avaliação do custo da intervenção foi registrada. Resultados: Foram incluídos no grupo intervenção 44 residentes e 16 no grupo controle. Nenhuma diferença significativa foi observada para o ponto de corte primário. No grupo intervenção, a melhoria do conhecimento e das habilidades foi observada aos seis meses para cada dispositivo e a melhoria dos desfechos dos pacientes foi analisada com o uso de estilete maleável e do introdutor de Eschmann para intubação. Nenhuma melhoria foi observada no grupo controle. O custo da intervenção estimado foi de 406D por residente. Conclusões: Um treinamento simulado de três horas para o manejo de via aérea difícil não melhorou a frequência do uso de dispositivos pelos residentes aos seis meses. No entanto, outros efeitos positivos sugerem a exploração da melhor relação tempo/eficiência de aquisição de conhecimento com a simulação do manejo de via aérea difícil. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02470195.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Myatra SN, Kalkundre RS, Divatia JV. Optimizing education in difficult airway management: meeting the challenge. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017;30:748---54.
2. Cook TM, Woodall N, Frerk C. Major complications of airway management in the UK: results of the Fourth National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Difficult Airway Society Part 1: anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2011;106:617---31.
3. Lorello GR, Cook DA, Johnson RL, et al. Simulation-based training in anaesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112:231---45.
4. Shelton CL, Smith AF. III. In pursuit of excellence in anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110:4---6.
5. Johnson KB, Syroid ND, Drews FA, et al. Part Task and variable priority training in first-year anesthesia resident education: a combined didactic and simulation-based approach to improve management of adverse airway and respiratory events. Anesthesiology. 2008;108:831---40.
6. Kennedy CC, Cannon EK, Warner DO, et al. Advanced airway management simulation training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:169---78.
7. Cox T, Seymour N, Stefanidis D. Moving the needle: simulation’s impact on patient outcomes. Surg Clin North Am. 2015;95:827---38.
8. Sun Y, Pan C, Li T, et al. Airway management education: simulation based training versus non-simulation based training --- a systematic review and meta-analyses. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17:17.
9. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115:827---48.
10. Kirkpatrick DL. Effective supervisory training and development, Part 2: in-house approaches and techniques. Personnel. 1985;62:52---6.
11. Rouse DN. Employing Kirkpatrick’s evaluation framework to determine the effectiveness of health information management courses and programs. Perspect Health Inf Manag. 2011;8:1c.
12. Wulf G, Shea C, Lewthwaite R. Motor skill learning and performance: a review of influential factors. Med Educ. 2010;44:75---84.
13. Marsland C, Larsen P, Segal R, et al. Proficient manipulation of fibreoptic bronchoscope to carina by novices on first clinical attempt after specialized bench practice. Br J Anaesth. 2010;104:375---81.
14. You-Ten KE, Bould MD, Friedman Z, et al. Cricothyrotomy training increases adherence to the ASA difficult airway algorithm in a simulated crisis: a randomized controlled trial. Can J Anaesth. 2015;62:485---94.
15. Boet S, Borges BC, Naik VN, et al. Complex procedural skills are retained for a minimum of 1 yr after a single high-fidelity simulation training session. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:533---9.
16. Kuduvalli PM, Jervis A, Tighe SQ, et al. Unanticipated difficult airway management in anaesthetised patients: a prospective study of the effect of mannequin training on management strategies and skill retention. Anaesthesia. 2008;63:364---9.
17. Chandra DB, Savoldelli GL, Joo HS, et al. Fiberoptic oral intubation: the effect of model fidelity on training for transfer to patient care. Anesthesiology. 2008;109:1007---13.
18. Crabtree NA, Chandra DB, Weiss ID, et al. Fibreoptic airway training: correlation of simulator performance and clinical skill. Can J Anaesth. 2008;55:100---4.
19. Riem N, Boet S, Bould MD, et al. Do technical skills correlate with non-technical skills in crisis resource management: a simulation study. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:723---8.
20. Isaranuwatchai W, Brydges R, Carnahan H, et al. Comparing the cost-effectiveness of simulation modalities: a case study of peripheral intravenous catheterization training. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014;19:219---32.
21. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ. Low- to high-fidelity simulation --- a continuum of medical education? Med Educ. 2003;37 Suppl. 1:22---8.
22. Cook DA, West CP. Perspective: reconsidering the focus on ‘‘outcomes research’’ in medical education: a cautionary note. Acad Med. 2013;88:162---7.
23. Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128---33.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email