Article

Training in placement of the left-sided double-lumen tube among non-thoracic anaesthesiologists: intubation model simulator versus computer-based digital video disc, a randomised controlled trial.

Department of Anesthesia, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1079, USA.
European Journal of Anaesthesiology (Impact Factor: 2.79). 11/2010; 28(3):169-74. DOI: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328340c332
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To compare the effectiveness of training with an airway model simulator versus digital video disc (DVD)-based instruction in placement of double-lumen endotracheal (DLT) tubes by anaesthesiologists with limited thoracic experience.
Single academic centre parallel randomised controlled trial with computer-generated random allocation.
Sixty patients undergoing elective thoracic or oesophageal surgeries requiring one-lung ventilation. Twenty-seven non-thoracic anaesthesiologists were randomised to place a DLT.
DLT placement instruction by an interactive airway simulator or computer-based DVD training. The main outcome measure was successful DLT placement.
Twenty-seven anaesthesiologists were randomised to one of the two intervention groups. Sixty consecutive patients were assigned to a randomised anaesthesiologist (n = 30 in each group). Participants failed to correctly place or position the DLT tubes in 14 of 60 patients (failure rate of 23%). There was no difference in the probability of satisfactory placement or time for positioning of the DLT between the training groups; 80.5% (95% confidence interval 58.2-96.2%) of tubes were successfully placed following intubation model simulator training versus 73.6% (95% confidence interval 49.8-88.5%) in the DVD group (P = 0.378).
Both teaching methods had similar outcomes for placement of DLTs by anaesthesiologists with limited thoracic anaesthesia experience. Both groups performed better than individuals in our prior study. Therefore, these methods should be considered when training anaesthesiologists to successfully place DLTs.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
60 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Simulation has long been integrated in anaesthesiology training, yet a comprehensive review of its effectiveness is presently lacking. Using meta-analysis and critical narrative analysis, we synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of simulation-based anaesthesiology training. We searched MEDLINE, ERIC, and SCOPUS through May 2011 and included studies using simulation to train health professional learners. Data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. We included 77 studies (6066 participants). Compared with no intervention (52 studies), simulation was associated with moderate to large pooled effect sizes (ESs) for all outcomes (ES range 0.60-1.05) except for patient effects (ES -0.39). Compared with non-simulation instruction (11 studies), simulation was associated with moderate effects for satisfaction and skills (ES 0.39 and 0.42, respectively), large effect for behaviours (1.77), and small effects for time, knowledge, and patient effects (-0.18 to 0.23). In 17 studies comparing alternative simulation interventions, training in non-technical skills (e.g. communication) and medical management compared with training in medical management alone was associated with negligible effects for knowledge and skills (four studies, ES range 0.14-0.15). Debriefing using multiple vs single information sources was associated with negligible effects for time and skills (three studies, ES range -0.07 to 0.09). Our critical analysis showed inconsistency in measurement of non-technical skills and consistency in the (ineffective) design of debriefing. Simulation in anaesthesiology appears to be more effective than no intervention (except for patient outcomes) and non-inferior to non-simulation instruction. Few studies have clarified the key instructional designs for simulation-based anaesthesiology training.
    BJA British Journal of Anaesthesia 12/2013; · 4.24 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on teaching airway management using technology-enhanced simulation. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles through May 11, 2011. Observational or controlled trials instructing medical professionals in direct or fiberoptic intubation, surgical airway, and/or supraglottic airway using technology-enhanced simulation were included. Two reviewers determined eligibility. Study quality, instructional design, and outcome data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. Of 10,904 articles screened, 76 studies were included (n = 5,226 participants). We used random effects meta-analysis to pool results. In comparison with no intervention, simulation training was associated with improved outcomes for knowledge (standardized mean difference, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.19-1.35]; n = 7 studies) and skill (1.01 [0.68-1.34]; n = 28) but not for behavior (0.52 [-0.30 to 1.34]; n = 4) or patient outcomes (-0.12 [-0.41 to 0.16]; n = 4). In comparison with nonsimulation interventions, simulation training was associated with increased learner satisfaction (0.54 [0.37-0.71]; n = 2), improved skills (0.64 [0.12-1.16]; n = 5), and patient outcomes (0.86 [0.12-1.59]; n = 3) but not knowledge (0.29 [-0.28 to 0.86]; n = 4). We found few comparative effectiveness studies exploring how to optimize the use of simulation-based training, and these revealed inconsistent results. For example, animal models were found superior to manikins in one study (p = 0.004) using outcome of task speed but inferior in another study in terms of skill ratings (p = 0.02). Five studies comparing simulators of high versus low technical sophistication found no significant difference in skill outcomes (p > 0.31). Limitations of this review include heterogeneity (I > 50% for most analysis) and variation in quality among primary studies. Simulation-based airway management curriculum is superior to no intervention and nonsimulation intervention for important education outcomes. Further research is required to fine-tune optimal curricular design.
    Critical care medicine 11/2013; · 6.37 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Demonstrate the feasibility of using the AirSim Bronchi airway simulator to teach residents how to manage lung isolation with double-lumen endotracheal tubes and bronchial blockers and evaluate their performance with a detailed checklist. Prospective observational study. University anesthesiology residency training program. Anesthesiology residents taking a cardiothoracic anesthesiology rotation. Residents were instructed in 7 tasks using the AirSim Bronchi: The use of the fiberoptic bronchoscope, methods for placing left and right double-lumen endotracheal tubes and 3 bronchial blockers (Univent, Arndt, and Cohen), and application of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) to the unventilated lung. Two to 3 weeks later, checklists and a detailed scoring system were used to assess performance. Residents rated the curriculum and their own confidence in performing the tasks using a 5-point Likert scale. Thirteen residents completed the curriculum. Their median Likert scale ratings of the curriculum based on a questionnaire with 6 items ranged from 4 to 5 of 5. Resident confidence scores for each lung isolation technique improved after the simulation training, with the median gain ranging from 0.5 to 1.5 Likert levels depending on the task. The largest improvement occurred with the bronchial blockers (p<0.05). The median performance score for the 7 tasks combined was 88% of the maximum possible points. The authors used the AirSim Bronchi simulator in a novel simulation curriculum to teach lung-isolation techniques to anesthesiology residents and evaluated performance using a detailed checklist scoring system. This curriculum is a promising educational tool.
    Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 11/2013; · 1.06 Impact Factor