Team-based model for non-operating room airway management: Validation using a simulation-based study

S. Demaria, David Berman, A. Goldberg, H. M. Lin, Y. Khelemsky, A. I. Levine, T. Asai

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background Non-operating room (non-OR) airway management has previously been identified as an area of concern because it carries a significant risk for complications. One reason for this could be attributed to the independent practice of residents in these situations. The aim of the present study was to ascertain whether differences in performance exist between residents working alone vs with a resident partner when encountering simulated non-OR airway management scenarios. Methods Thirty-six anaesthesia residents were randomized into two groups. Each group experienced three separate scenarios (two scenarios initially and then a third 6 weeks later). The scenarios consisted of one control scenario and two critical event scenarios [i.e. asystole during laryngoscopy and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) upon post-intubation institution of positive pressure ventilation]. One group experienced the simulated non-OR scenarios alone (Solo group). The other group consisted of resident pairs, participating in the same three scenarios (Team group). Results Although the time to intubation did not differ between the Solo and Team groups, there were several differences in performance. The Team group received better overall performance ratings for the asystole (8.5 vs 5.5 out of 10; P<0.001) and PEA (8.5 vs 5.8 out of 10; P<0.001) scenarios. The Team group was also able to recognize asystole and PEA conditions faster than the Solo group [10.1 vs 23.5 s (P<0.001) and 13.3 vs 36.0 s (P<0.001), respectively]. Conclusions Residents who performed a simulated intubation with a second trained provider had better overall performance than those who practised independently. The residents who practised in a group were also faster to diagnose serious complications, including peri-intubation asystole and PEA. Given these data, it is reasonable that training programmes consider performing all non-OR airway management with a team-based method.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)103-108
Number of pages6
JournalBritish Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume117
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 1 2016
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Airway Management
Heart Arrest
Intubation
Laryngoscopy
Positive-Pressure Respiration
Anesthesia
Education

Keywords

  • Airway management
  • High-fidelity simulation
  • Team-based anaesthesia

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine

Cite this

Team-based model for non-operating room airway management : Validation using a simulation-based study. / Demaria, S.; Berman, David; Goldberg, A.; Lin, H. M.; Khelemsky, Y.; Levine, A. I.; Asai, T.

In: British Journal of Anaesthesia, Vol. 117, No. 1, 01.07.2016, p. 103-108.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Demaria, S. ; Berman, David ; Goldberg, A. ; Lin, H. M. ; Khelemsky, Y. ; Levine, A. I. ; Asai, T. / Team-based model for non-operating room airway management : Validation using a simulation-based study. In: British Journal of Anaesthesia. 2016 ; Vol. 117, No. 1. pp. 103-108.
@article{2fa2116580f54c2eb2cd977c6b623d9c,
title = "Team-based model for non-operating room airway management: Validation using a simulation-based study",
abstract = "Background Non-operating room (non-OR) airway management has previously been identified as an area of concern because it carries a significant risk for complications. One reason for this could be attributed to the independent practice of residents in these situations. The aim of the present study was to ascertain whether differences in performance exist between residents working alone vs with a resident partner when encountering simulated non-OR airway management scenarios. Methods Thirty-six anaesthesia residents were randomized into two groups. Each group experienced three separate scenarios (two scenarios initially and then a third 6 weeks later). The scenarios consisted of one control scenario and two critical event scenarios [i.e. asystole during laryngoscopy and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) upon post-intubation institution of positive pressure ventilation]. One group experienced the simulated non-OR scenarios alone (Solo group). The other group consisted of resident pairs, participating in the same three scenarios (Team group). Results Although the time to intubation did not differ between the Solo and Team groups, there were several differences in performance. The Team group received better overall performance ratings for the asystole (8.5 vs 5.5 out of 10; P<0.001) and PEA (8.5 vs 5.8 out of 10; P<0.001) scenarios. The Team group was also able to recognize asystole and PEA conditions faster than the Solo group [10.1 vs 23.5 s (P<0.001) and 13.3 vs 36.0 s (P<0.001), respectively]. Conclusions Residents who performed a simulated intubation with a second trained provider had better overall performance than those who practised independently. The residents who practised in a group were also faster to diagnose serious complications, including peri-intubation asystole and PEA. Given these data, it is reasonable that training programmes consider performing all non-OR airway management with a team-based method.",
keywords = "Airway management, High-fidelity simulation, Team-based anaesthesia",
author = "S. Demaria and David Berman and A. Goldberg and Lin, {H. M.} and Y. Khelemsky and Levine, {A. I.} and T. Asai",
year = "2016",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/bja/aew121",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "117",
pages = "103--108",
journal = "British Journal of Anaesthesia",
issn = "0007-0912",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Team-based model for non-operating room airway management

T2 - Validation using a simulation-based study

AU - Demaria, S.

AU - Berman, David

AU - Goldberg, A.

AU - Lin, H. M.

AU - Khelemsky, Y.

AU - Levine, A. I.

AU - Asai, T.

PY - 2016/7/1

Y1 - 2016/7/1

N2 - Background Non-operating room (non-OR) airway management has previously been identified as an area of concern because it carries a significant risk for complications. One reason for this could be attributed to the independent practice of residents in these situations. The aim of the present study was to ascertain whether differences in performance exist between residents working alone vs with a resident partner when encountering simulated non-OR airway management scenarios. Methods Thirty-six anaesthesia residents were randomized into two groups. Each group experienced three separate scenarios (two scenarios initially and then a third 6 weeks later). The scenarios consisted of one control scenario and two critical event scenarios [i.e. asystole during laryngoscopy and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) upon post-intubation institution of positive pressure ventilation]. One group experienced the simulated non-OR scenarios alone (Solo group). The other group consisted of resident pairs, participating in the same three scenarios (Team group). Results Although the time to intubation did not differ between the Solo and Team groups, there were several differences in performance. The Team group received better overall performance ratings for the asystole (8.5 vs 5.5 out of 10; P<0.001) and PEA (8.5 vs 5.8 out of 10; P<0.001) scenarios. The Team group was also able to recognize asystole and PEA conditions faster than the Solo group [10.1 vs 23.5 s (P<0.001) and 13.3 vs 36.0 s (P<0.001), respectively]. Conclusions Residents who performed a simulated intubation with a second trained provider had better overall performance than those who practised independently. The residents who practised in a group were also faster to diagnose serious complications, including peri-intubation asystole and PEA. Given these data, it is reasonable that training programmes consider performing all non-OR airway management with a team-based method.

AB - Background Non-operating room (non-OR) airway management has previously been identified as an area of concern because it carries a significant risk for complications. One reason for this could be attributed to the independent practice of residents in these situations. The aim of the present study was to ascertain whether differences in performance exist between residents working alone vs with a resident partner when encountering simulated non-OR airway management scenarios. Methods Thirty-six anaesthesia residents were randomized into two groups. Each group experienced three separate scenarios (two scenarios initially and then a third 6 weeks later). The scenarios consisted of one control scenario and two critical event scenarios [i.e. asystole during laryngoscopy and pulseless electrical activity (PEA) upon post-intubation institution of positive pressure ventilation]. One group experienced the simulated non-OR scenarios alone (Solo group). The other group consisted of resident pairs, participating in the same three scenarios (Team group). Results Although the time to intubation did not differ between the Solo and Team groups, there were several differences in performance. The Team group received better overall performance ratings for the asystole (8.5 vs 5.5 out of 10; P<0.001) and PEA (8.5 vs 5.8 out of 10; P<0.001) scenarios. The Team group was also able to recognize asystole and PEA conditions faster than the Solo group [10.1 vs 23.5 s (P<0.001) and 13.3 vs 36.0 s (P<0.001), respectively]. Conclusions Residents who performed a simulated intubation with a second trained provider had better overall performance than those who practised independently. The residents who practised in a group were also faster to diagnose serious complications, including peri-intubation asystole and PEA. Given these data, it is reasonable that training programmes consider performing all non-OR airway management with a team-based method.

KW - Airway management

KW - High-fidelity simulation

KW - Team-based anaesthesia

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84977108855&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84977108855&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/bja/aew121

DO - 10.1093/bja/aew121

M3 - Article

C2 - 27317709

AN - SCOPUS:84977108855

VL - 117

SP - 103

EP - 108

JO - British Journal of Anaesthesia

JF - British Journal of Anaesthesia

SN - 0007-0912

IS - 1

ER -