Viren N. Naik

Nontechnical Skills in Anesthesia Crisis Management with Repeated Exposure to Simulation-based Education

Background:Critical incident reporting and observational studies have identified nontechnical skills that are vital to successful anesthesia crisis management. Examples of such skills include task management, team working, situation awareness, and decision making. These skills are not necessarily acquired through clinical experience and may need to be specifically taught. This study uses a high-fidelity patient simulator to assess the effect of repeated exposure to simulated anesthesia crises on the nontechnical skills of anesthesia residents. Methods:After institutional research board approval and informed consent, 20 anesthesia residents were recruited. Each resident was randomized to participate as the primary anesthesiologist in the management of three different simulated anesthesia crises using a high-fidelity patient simulator. After each session, videotaped footage was used to facilitate debriefing of their nontechnical skills. The videotapes were later reviewed by two expert blinded independent assessors who rated each residents nontechnical skills by using a previously validated and reliable marking system. Results:A significant improvement in the nontechnical skills of residents was demonstrated from their first to second session and from their first to third session (both P < 0.005). However from their second to third session, no significant improvement was observed. Interrater reliability between assessors was modest (single rater intraclass correlation = 0.53). Conclusion:A single exposure to anesthesia crises using a high-fidelity patient simulator can improve the nontechnical skills of anesthesia residents. However, an additional simulation session may confer little or no additional benefit.

Fiberoptic orotracheal intubation on anesthetized patients: Do manipulation skills learned on a simple model transfer into the operating room?

Background With increasing pressure to use operating room time efficiently, opportunities for residents to learn fiberoptic orotracheal intubation in the operating room have declined. The purpose of this study was to determine whether fiberoptic orotracheal intubation skills learned outside the operating room on a simple model could be transferred into the clinical setting. Methods First-year anesthesiology residents and first- and second-year internal medicine residents were recruited. Subjects were randomized to a didactic-teaching-only group (n = 12) or a model-training group (n = 12). The didactic-teaching group received a detailed lecture from an expert bronchoscopist. The model-training group was guided, by experts, through tasks performed on a simple model designed to refine fiberoptic manipulation skills. After the training session, subjects performed a fiberoptic orotracheal intubation on healthy, consenting, anesthetized, paralyzed female patients undergoing elective surgery with predicted “easy” laryngoscopic intubations. Two blinded anesthesiologists evaluated each subject. Results After the training session, the model group significantly outperformed the didactic group in the operating room when evaluated with a global rating scale (P < 0.01) and checklist (P < 0.05). Model-trained subjects completed the fiberoptic orotracheal intubation significantly faster than didactic-trained subjects (P < 0.01). Model-trained subjects were also more successful at achieving tracheal intubation than the didactic group (P < 0.005). Conclusion Fiberoptic orotracheal intubation skills training on a simple model is more effective than conventional didactic instruction for transfer to the clinical setting. Incorporating an extraoperative model into the training of fiberoptic orotracheal intubation may greatly reduce the time and pressures that accompany teaching this skill in the operating room.

The difficult airway with recommendations for management – Part 1 – Difficult tracheal intubation encountered in an unconscious/induced patient

AbstractBackgroundPreviously active in the mid-1990s, the Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) studied the unanticipated difficult airway and made recommendations on management in a 1998 publication. The CAFG has since reconvened to examine more recent scientific literature on airway management. The Focus Group’s mandate for this article was to arrive at updated practice recommendations for management of the unconscious/induced patient in whom difficult or failed tracheal intubation is encountered. MethodsNineteen clinicians with backgrounds in anesthesia, emergency medicine, and intensive care joined this iteration of the CAFG. Each member was assigned topics and conducted reviews of Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Results were presented and discussed during multiple teleconferences and two face-to-face meetings. When appropriate, evidence- or consensus-based recommendations were made together with assigned levels of evidence modelled after previously published criteria.ConclusionsThe clinician must be aware of the potential for harm to the patient that can occur with multiple attempts at tracheal intubation. This likelihood can be minimized by moving early from an unsuccessful primary intubation technique to an alternative “Plan B” technique if oxygenation by face mask or ventilation using a supraglottic device is non-problematic. Irrespective of the technique(s) used, failure to achieve successful tracheal intubation in a maximum of three attempts defines failed tracheal intubation and signals the need to engage an exit strategy. Failure to oxygenate by face mask or supraglottic device ventilation occurring in conjunction with failed tracheal intubation defines a failed oxygenation, “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” situation. Cricothyrotomy must then be undertaken without delay, although if not already tried, an expedited and concurrent attempt can be made to place a supraglottic device.RésuméContexteActif au milieu des années 1990, le Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG), un groupe dédié à l’étude des difficultés imprévues dans la prise en charge des voies aériennes, a émis des recommandations sur ce sujet dans une publication datant de 1998. Le CAFG s’est réuni à nouveau pour passer en revue la littérature scientifique récente concernant la prise en charge des voies aériennes. Dans cet article, le CAFG s’est donné pour mission d’émettre des recommandations visant la prise en charge du patient inconscient ou anesthésié qui présente des difficultés d’intubation significatives.MéthodeDix-neuf cliniciens ayant une formation en anesthésie, en médecine d’urgence ou en soins intensifs composent le CAFG actuel. Les participants ont passé en revue des sujets précis en consultant les bases de données Medline, EMBASE et Cochrane. Les résultats de ces revues ont été présentés et discutés dans le cadre de téléconférences et de deux réunions en personne. Lorsqu’indiqué, des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes ou sur un consensus ont été émises. Le niveau de confiance attribué à ces recommandations a aussi été défini.ConclusionLe clinicien doit avoir conscience des lésions qu’il peut infliger lors de tentatives multiples d’intubation trachéale. Il est possible d’éviter de telles lésions en abandonnant rapidement une technique d’intubation infructueuse afin d’opter pour une méthode alternative (ou ‘plan B’) à condition que l’oxygénation par masque facial ou par l’utilisation d’un dispositif supraglottique s’avère possible. Nonobstant la ou les techniques choisies, un maximum de trois tentatives infructueuses mène à la conclusion qu’il s’agit d’un échec d’intubation et devrait inciter le clinicien à adopter une stratégie de retrait. Une situation dans laquelle il est impossible de procéder à l’oxygénation du patient à l’aide d’un masque facial, d’un dispositif supraglottique ou de l’intubation endotrachéale est qualifiée de scénario cannot intubate, cannot ventilate. Il est alors impératif de procéder sans délai à une cricothyrotomie, à moins que l’insertion d’un dispositif supraglottique n’ait été tentée. Celle-ci peut alors être effectuée rapidement et parallèlement à la réalisation de la cricothyrotomie.

The difficult airway with recommendations for management – Part 2 – The anticipated difficult airway

BackgroundAppropriate planning is crucial to avoid morbidity and mortality when difficulty is anticipated with airway management. Many guidelines developed by national societies have focused on management of difficulty encountered in the unconscious patient; however, little guidance appears in the literature on how best to approach the patient with an anticipated difficult airway.MethodsTo review this and other subjects, the Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) was re-formed. With representation from anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and critical care, CAFG members were assigned topics for review. As literature reviews were completed, results were presented and discussed during teleconferences and two face-to-face meetings. When appropriate, evidence- or consensus-based recommendations were made, and levels of evidence were assigned.Principal findingsPreviously published predictors of difficult direct laryngoscopy are widely known. More recent studies report predictors of difficult face mask ventilation, video laryngoscopy, use of a supraglottic device, and cricothyrotomy. All are important facets of a complete airway evaluation and must be considered when difficulty is anticipated with airway management. Many studies now document the increasing patient morbidity that occurs with multiple attempts at tracheal intubation. Therefore, when difficulty is anticipated, tracheal intubation after induction of general anesthesia should be considered only when success with the chosen device(s) can be predicted in a maximum of three attempts. Concomitant predicted difficulty using oxygenation by face mask or supraglottic device ventilation as a fallback makes an awake approach advisable. Contextual issues, such as patient cooperation, availability of additional skilled help, and the clinician’s experience, must also be considered in deciding the appropriate strategy.ConclusionsWith an appropriate airway evaluation and consideration of relevant contextual issues, a rational decision can be made on whether an awake approach to tracheal intubation will maximize patient safety or if airway management can safely proceed after induction of general anesthesia. With predicted difficulty, close attention should be paid to details of implementing the chosen approach. This should include having a plan in case of the failure of tracheal intubation or patient oxygenation.RésuméContexteUne planification adaptée est essentielle afin d’éviter la morbidité et la mortalité lorsqu’on prévoit des difficultés dans la prise en charge des voies aériennes. De nombreuses recommandations émises par des sociétés nationales mettent l’emphase sur la gestion des difficultés rencontrées chez le patient inconscient. Toutefois, il n’existe dans la littérature que peu de suggestions sur la façon d’approcher le patient chez qui les difficultés sont prévisibles.MéthodeAfin de passer en revue ce sujet et d’autres, le Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG), un groupe dédié à l’étude de la prise en charge des voies aériennes, a été reformé. Les membres du CAFG représentent diverses spécialités soit l’anesthésiologie, la médecine d’urgence et les soins intensifs. Chaque participant avait pour mission de passer en revue des sujets précis. Les résultats de ces revues ont été présentés et discutés dans le cadre de téléconférences et de deux réunions en personne. Lorsqu’indiqué, des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes ou sur un consensus ont été émises. Le niveau de confiance attribué à ces recommandations a aussi été défini.Constatations principalesPlusieurs éléments permettant de prédire la laryngoscopie directe difficile sont connus. Des études plus récentes décrivent aussi les éléments permettant d’anticiper des difficultés lors de la ventilation au masque facial, de la vidéolaryngoscopie, de l’utilisation d’un dispositif supraglottique ou de la réalisation d’une cricothyrotomie. Tous ces éléments doivent être pris en compte lors de l’évaluation du patient chez qui des difficultés sont anticipées lors de la prise en charge des voies aériennes. De nombreuses études rapportent une morbidité accrue liée à des tentatives multiples d’intubation trachéale. Planifier de procéder à l’intubation trachéale après l’induction de l’anesthésie générale n’est donc recommandé que pour les patients chez qui la ou les techniques prévues ne nécessiteront pas plus de trois tentatives. Il est recommandé de prioriser d’emblée une approche vigile dans les cas où des difficultés reliées à l’utilisation du masque facial ou d’un dispositif supraglottique sont prévues. L’établissement d’une stratégie de prise en charge doit tenir compte d’éléments contextuels telles la collaboration du patient, la disponibilité d’aide supplémentaire et de personnel qualifié, et l’expérience du clinicien.ConclusionUne évaluation adaptée des voies aériennes ainsi que les éléments contextuels propres à chaque situation sont les bases qui permettent de déterminer de manière rationnelle si l’intubation trachéale vigile est apte à optimiser la sécurité du patient, ou si la prise en charge des voies aériennes peut être réalisée de manière sécuritaire après l’induction de l’anesthésie générale. Lorsqu’on prévoit des difficultés, une attention particulière doit être portée aux détails nécessaires au succès de l’approche envisagée. De plus, il convient d’avoir un plan en cas d’échec de l’intubation trachéale ou si l’oxygénation du patient s’avérait difficile.

The intubating laryngeal mask airway after induction of general anesthesia versus awake fiberoptic intubation in patients with difficult airways

We performed the current study to compare tracheal intubation (TI) using awake fiberoptic intubation (AFOI) and TI using the intubating laryngeal mask airway (ILMA) in patients with difficult airway. Our hypothesis was that patients with difficult airways could be safely intubated after induction of anesthesia using the ILMA. After ethics approval and informed consent, 38 patients who were identified to have difficult airways were randomly assigned to AFOI or TI using the ILMA. Patients in the AFOI group had the usual sedation and airway topicalization. Patients in the ILMA group were induced with propofol for ILMA insertion and succinylcholine for TI. The first TI attempt was done blindly via the ILMA and all subsequent attempts were performed with fiberoptic guidance. All patients in the ILMA group were successfully ventilated. Successful TI was achieved in all patients in both groups. However, in 10% of the patients in the ILMA group, TI was achieved by a second anesthesiologist who was more experienced with the use of the ILMA. In a postoperative questionnaire, patients in the ILMA group were more satisfied with their method of TI (P < 0.01). The ILMA is a useful device in the management of patients with difficult airways and may be a valuable alternative to AFOI when AFOI is contraindicated or in the patient with the unanticipated difficult airway.

Assessment of procedural skills in anaesthesia

A key aspect of the practice of anaesthesia is the ability to perform practical procedures efficiently and safely. Decreased working hours during training, an increasing focus on patient safety, and greater accountability have resulted in a paradigm shift in medical education. The resulting international trend towards competency-based training demands robust methods of evaluation of all domains of learning. The assessment of procedural skills in anaesthesia is poor compared with other domains of learning and has fallen behind surgical fields. Logbooks and procedure lists are best suited to providing information regarding likely opportunities within training programmes. Retrospective global scoring and direct observation without specific criteria are unreliable. The current best evidence for a gold standard for assessment of procedural skills in anaesthesia consists of a combination of previously validated checklists and global rating scales, used prospectively by a trained observer, for a procedure performed in an actual patient. Future research should include core assessment parameters to ensure methodological rigor and facilitate robust comparisons with other studies: (i) reliability, (ii) validity, (iii) feasibility, (iv) cost-effectiveness, and (v) comprehensiveness with varying levels of difficulty. Simulation may become a key part of the future of formative and summative skills assessment in anaesthesia; however, research is required to develop and test simulators that are realistic enough to be suitable for use in high-stakes evaluation.

The value of screening preoperative chest x-rays: a systematic review

PurposeChestx-ray (CXR) is the most frequently ordered radiological test in Canada. Despite published guidelines, variable policies exist amongst different hospitals for ordering of preoperative CXRs. The purpose of this study was to systematically review the literature on the value of screening CXRs and establish evidence to support guidelines for the use of preoperative screening CXRs.SourceMedline and Embase were searched under set terms for all English language articles published during 1966–2004. All eligible studies were reviewed and data were extracted individually by two authors. Of the 513 articles identified, 14 studies met both inclusion and exclusion criteria.Principal findingsThe quality of published evidence was modest as only six of the studies were rated as fair and eight as poor. Of the reported studies, diagnostic yield increased with age. However, most of the abnormalities consisted of chronic disorders such as cardiomegaly and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (up to 65%). The rate of subsequent investigations was highly variable (4–47%). When further investigations were performed, the proportion of patients who had a change in management was low (10% of investigated patients). Postoperative pulmonary complications were also similar between patients who had preoperative CXRs (12.8%) and patients who did not (16%).ConclusionAn association between preoperative screening CXRs and decrease in morbidity or mortality could not be established. As the prevalence of CXR abnormalities is low in patients under the age of 70, there is fair evidence that routine CXRs should not be performed for patients in this age group without risk factors. For patients over 70, there is insufficient evidence for or against performance of routine CXRs. The current recommendation from the Guidelines Association Committee that routine CXRs should not be performed for patients over 70 without risk factors is supported by this study.RésuméObjectifLa radiographie pulmonaire (RXP) est le test radiologique le plus demandé au Canada. Malgré les directives publiées, différentes politiques de demande de RXP préopératoires existent dans les hôpitaux. Nous voulions faire une revue systématique des documents sur la valeur des RXP de dépistage préopératoire et établir une preuve appuyant les directives sur leur usage.SourceNous avons passé en revue les bases Medline et Embase sous des termes déterminés pour tous les articles en anglais publiés de 1966 à 2004. Toutes les études admissibles ont été revues et les données extraites isolément par deux auteurs. Des 513 articles retenus, 14 études répondaient aux critères d’inclusion et d’exclusion.Constatations principalesLa qualité de la preuve publiée était modeste, car seulement six études ont été cotées acceptables et huit pauvres. Dans ces études, le rendement diagnostique augmentait avec l’âge. Cependant, la majorité des anomalies étaient des troubles chroniques comme la cardiomégalie et la maladie pulmonaire obstructive chronique (jusqu’à 65 %). Le taux d’examens subséquents était très variable (4–47 %). Quand d’autres tests étaient effectués, une faible proportion (10 % des patients testés) de patients voyaient leur traitement modifié. Les complications pulmonaires postopératoires étaient aussi similaires chez les patients qui avaient eu (12,8 %) ou non (16 %) des RXP préopératoires.ConclusionUne association entre les RXP de dépistage préopératoire et une baisse de la morbidité ou de la mortalité n’a pas pu être établie. Comme la prévalence des anomalies détectées lors des RXP était faible chez les patients de moins de 70 ans, il semble évident que des RXP de routine ne devraient pas être réalisés pour les patients de ce groupe d’âge sans facteurs de risque. Pour les patients de plus de 70 ans, la preuve est insuffisante pour décider s’il y a lieu de procéder à des RXP de routine. La recommandation actuelle du Comité des directives de l’Association voulant que les RXP de routine ne soient pas réalisés pour les patients de plus de 70 ans sans facteurs de risque est soutenue par notre étude.

Barriers to use of simulation-based education.

PurposeBarriers to simulation-based education in postgraduate and continuing education for anesthesiologists have not been well studied. We hypothesized that the level of training may influence attitudes towards simulation-based education and impact on the use of simulation. This study investigated this issue at the University of Toronto which possesses two sites equipped with high-fidelity patient simulators.MethodsA 40-question survey of experiences, perceptions, motivations and perceived barriers to simulation-based education, was distributed to 154 anesthesiologists attending a departmental conference. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and associations between responses were assessed using either the Chi-Square statistic or a one-way analysis of variance.ResultsThe rate of response was 58%. Residents had experienced simulation-based education (96%) more often than staff (58%) and fellows (36%), (P < 0.001 respectively). Residents had also attended more simulation sessions than staff and fellows (mean 2.8 vs 1.05 and 1.04, P < 0.001 respectively). Residents and fellows found simulation-based education more relevant for their training than staff (88% vs 65%, P < 0.05). Eighty-one percent of the respondents identified at least one significant barrier that prevents or limits them from attending simulator sessions. Staff anesthesiologists perceived multiple barriers and identified ‘time’ and ‘financial issues’ as significant barriers.ConclusionAnesthesiologist’ level of training influences their attitudes towards and their perceptions of simulation-based education. This survey has identified perceived barriers that may limit a wider utilization of simulation. These results may be used to implement targeted actions such as course design, incentives, and information strategies, which could improve access and future use of simulation.RésuméObjectifLes barriéres à la formation fondée sur la simulation en enseignement universitaire supérieur et en formation continue pour les anesthésiologistes ne sont pas bien connues. Nous avons émis ľhypothése que le niveau de formation pouvait influencer ľattitude face à ce type de formation et avoir un effet sur ľutilisation de la simulation. Notre étude a été réalisée à ľuniversité de Toronto qui posséde deux sites équipés de simulateurs de haute fidélité.MéthodeUn questionnaire de 40 questions sur les expériences, les perceptions, les motivations et les barriéres perçues de la formation par simulation a été distribué à 154 anesthésiologistes en réunion départementale. Les données ont été analysées par des statistiques descriptives et les liens entre les réponses par le test chi-deux ou une analyse simple de la variance.RésultatsLe taux de réponses a été de 58 %. Les résidents avaient plus ďexpérience de la simulation (96 %) que les spécialistes (58 %) et les boursiers (36 %), (P < 0,001 respectivement). Les résidents avaient aussi assisté à plus de sessions de simulation que les spécialistes et les boursiers (moyenne de 2,8 vs 1,05 et 1,04, P < 0,001 respectivement). Les résidents et les boursiers ont trouvé la simulation plus pertinente que les anesthésiologistes (88 % vs 65 %, P < 0,05). Parmi les répondants, 81 % ont reconnu au moins une barriére importante qui empêche ou limite la participation à des sessions de simulation. Les spécialistes ont perçu de multiples barriéres significatives dont le «temps» et «les questions financiéres».ConclusionLe niveau de formation des anesthésiologistes influence ľattitude face à la simulation et leurs perceptions de la formation par simulation. Les limites à un plus grand usage de la simulation, reconnues dans ľenquête, pourraient servir à des interventions ciblées comme ľorganisation ďun cours, des incitatifs et des stratégies ďinformations pour améliorer ľaccés à la simulation et son usage futur.Objectif Les barrieres a la formation fondee sur la simulation en enseignement universitaire superieur et en formation continue pour les anesthesiologistes ne sont pas bien connues. Nous avons emis ľhypothese que le niveau de formation pouvait influencer ľattitude face a ce type de formation et avoir un effet sur ľutilisation de la simulation. Notre etude a ete realisee a ľuniversite de Toronto qui possede deux sites equipes de simulateurs de haute fidelite.

Fiberoptic Oral Intubation : The Effect of Model Fidelity on Training for Transfer to Patient Care

Background:Previous studies have indicated that fiberoptic orotracheal intubation (FOI) skills can be learned outside the operating room. The purpose of this study was to determine which of two educational interventions allows learners to gain greater capacity for performing the procedure. Methods:Respiratory therapists were randomly assigned to a low-fidelity or high-fidelity training model group. The low-fidelity group was guided by experts, on a nonanatomic model designed to refine fiberoptic manipulation skills. The high-fidelity group practiced their skills on a computerized virtual reality bronchoscopy simulator. After training, subjects performed two consecutive FOIs on healthy, anesthetized patients with predicted “easy” intubations. Each subjects FOI was evaluated by blinded examiners, using a validated global rating scale and checklist. Success and time were also measured. Results:Data were analyzed using a two-way mixed design analysis of variance. There was no significant difference between the low-fidelity (n = 14) and high-fidelity (n = 14) model groups when compared with the global rating scale, checklist, time, and success at achieving tracheal intubation (all P = not significant). Second attempts in both groups were significantly better than first attempts (P < 0.001), and there was no interaction between “fidelity of training model” and “first versus second attempt” scores. Conclusions:There was no added benefit from training on a costly virtual reality model with respect to transfer of FOI skills to intraoperative patient care. Second attempts in both groups were significantly better than first attempts. Low-fidelity models for FOI training outside the operating room are an alternative for programs with budgetary constraints.

Evaluation of patient simulator performance as an adjunct to the oral examination for senior anesthesia residents

Background: Patient simulators possess features for performance assessment. However, the concurrent validity and the “added value” of simulator-based examinations over traditional examinations have not been adequately addressed. The current study compared a simulator-based examination with an oral examination for assessing the management skills of senior anesthesia residents. Methods: Twenty senior anesthesia residents were assessed sequentially in resuscitation and trauma scenarios using two assessment modalities: an oral examination, followed by a simulator-based examination. Two independent examiners scored the performances with a previously validated global rating scale developed by the Anesthesia Oral Examination Board of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. Different examiners were used to rate the oral and simulation performances. Results: Interrater reliability was good to excellent across scenarios and modalities: intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.77 to 0.87. The within-scenario between-modality score correlations (concurrent validity) were moderate: r = 0.52 (resuscitation) and r = 0.53 (trauma) (P < 0.05). Forty percent of the average score variance was accounted for by the participants, and 30% was accounted for by the participant-by-modality interaction. Conclusions: Variance in participant scores suggests that the examination is able to perform as expected in terms of discriminating among test takers. The rather large participant-by-modality interaction, along with the pattern of correlations, suggests that an examinees performance varies based on the testing modality and a trainee who “knows how” in an oral examination may not necessarily be able to “show how” in a simulation laboratory. Simulation may therefore be considered a useful adjunct to the oral examination.