Search

In 1985 Mallampati et al. published a non-invasive score for the evaluation of airways (Mallampati grading scale, MGS), which originally consisted of only three different classes and has been modified several times. At present it is mostly used in the version of Samsoon and Young consisting of four different classes. Class I: soft palate, fauces, uvula, palatopharyngeal arch visible, class II: soft palate, fauces, uvula visible, class III: soft palate, base of the uvula visible and class IV: soft palate not visible. Nevertheless, other versions of MGS still exist, each having different values for sensitivity and specification. The current opinion is therefore that MGS is no longer useful as a stand-alone predictor but in combination with others it is still part of today's most relevant guidelines, such as those of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA), the UK's Difficult Airway Society (DAS), the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) and the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and must therefore be known by anesthetists. Even in times of sophisticated tools for airway management, the procedure remains a high risk, so every anesthetist has to be prepared for and well trained in management of known and unexpected difficult airways. Evaluation of the patient's airway is a part of modern airway management to prevent problems and reduce risk of hypoxia during the procedure. The theoretical knowledge and practical skills of European anesthetists were evaluated at two international congresses, the German Anesthesia Congress (DAC) and Euroanaesthesia 2014. The DAC is an annual meeting of German speaking anesthetists, hosted by the DGAI. The Euroanaesthesia is the annual European pendant hosted by the ESA. Participation was voluntary and only physicians were allowed to take part. Theory was evaluated by a questionnaire containing open and closed questions for MGS that had to be answered by every participant alone. Apart from theory, a practical evaluation was performed. Every participant had to classify the MGS of a human airway model. The model was identical on both congresses. According to the original publication a checklist containing the factors essential for the correct performance was filled out by a supervising experienced anesthetist. During DAC 2014 n = 267 physicians participated in the study, 22 participants were excluded due to inconsistent answers, incomplete questionnaires or missing practical part. A total of 245 data sets were evaluated. During Euroanaesthesia 2014 n = 298 physicians participated in the study, 68 participants were excluded due to inconsistent answers, incomplete questionnaires or missing practical part and 230 data sets were evaluated. At the DAC the mean age (± SD) was 44.5 ± 9.5 years, 157 (64.1%) were male and 88 (35.9%) were female. Working experience was trainee anesthetist in 16.7% and other participants were experienced anesthetists. At the ESA the mean age (± SD) was 42.4 ± 9.5 years, 133 (57.8%) were male and 97 (42.2%) female. Trainee anesthetists were 15.2%, the rest were experienced anesthetists. The DAC participants knew Mallampati classes 1 (65%) and 4 (45%) better than 2 and 3 and there was no relevant differences to the ESA (close to 30% knew the classes 1-4 here). Classification of the airway model was correct in 62% and 67% at DAC and ESA, respectively. Most participants performed the practical evaluation correctly except the sitting position of the model. In agreement with earlier studies, these results show the lack of knowledge in evaluation of airways according to current guidelines of all relevant societies. This is likely to increase preventable risks for patients as unexpected difficult airway management increases the risk for hypoxia and intubation damage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Simulation-based training (SBT) has developed into an established method of medical training. Studies focusing on the education of medical students have used simulation as an evaluation tool for defined skills. A small number of studies provide evidence that SBT improves medical students' skills in the clinical setting. Moreover, they were strictly limited to a few areas, such as the diagnosis of heart murmurs or the correct application of cricoid pressure. Other studies could not prove adequate transferability from the skills gained in SBT to the patient site. Whether SBT has an effect on medical students' skills in anesthesiology in the clinical setting is controversial. To explore this issue, we designed a prospective, randomized, single-blind trial that was integrated into the undergraduate anesthesiology curriculum of our department during the second year of the clinical phase of medical school.Objectives: This study intended to explore the effect of SBT on medical students within the mandatory undergraduate anesthesiology curriculum of our department in the operating room with respect to basic skills in anesthesiology.Materials and Methods: After obtaining ethical approval, the participating students of the third clinical semester were randomized into two groups: the SIM-OR group was trained by a 225 min long SBT in basic skills in anesthesiology before attending the operating room (OR) apprenticeship. The OR-SIM group was trained after the operating room apprenticeship by SBT. During SBT the students were trained in five clinical skills detailed below. Further, two clinical scenarios were simulated using a full-scale simulator. The students had to prepare the patient and perform induction of anesthesia, including bag-mask ventilation after induction in scenario 1 and rapid sequence induction in scenario 2. Using the five-point Likert scale, five defined skills were evaluated at defined time points during the study period. 1) application of the safety checklist, 2) application of basic patient monitoring, 3) establishment of intravenous access, 4) bag-and-mask ventilation, and 5) adjustment of ventilatory parameters after the patients' airways were secured. A cumulative score of 5 points was defined as the best and a cumulative score of 25 as the worst rating for a defined time point. The primary endpoint was the cumulative score after day 1 in the operating room apprenticeship and the difference in cumulative scores from days 1 to 4. Our hypothesis was that the SIM-OR group would achieve a better score after day 1 in the operating room apprenticeship and would gain a larger increase in score from day 1 to day 4 than the OR-SIM group.Results: 73 students were allocated to the OR-SIM group and 70 students to the SIM-OR group. There was no significant difference between the two groups after day 1 of the operating room apprenticeship and no difference in increase of the cumulative score from day 1 to day 4 (median of cumulative score on day 1: 'SIM-OR' 11.2 points vs. 'OR-SIM' 14.6 points; p = 0.067; median of difference from day 1 to day 4: 'SIM-OR' -3.7 vs. 'OR-SIM' -6.4; p = 0.110).Conclusion: With the methods applied, this study could not prove that 225 min of SBT before the operating room apprenticeship increased the medical students' clinical skills as evaluated in the operating room. Secondary endpoints indicate that medical students have better clinical skills at the end of the entire curriculum when they have been trained through SBT before the operating room apprenticeship. However, the authors believe that simulator training has a positive impact on students' acquisition of procedural and patient safety skills, even if the methods applied in this study may not mirror this aspect sufficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unanticipated airway problems in infants can rapidly develop into severe hypoxemia. Team members can provide support and suggest steps of action if a shared mental model of the next steps exists. Briefing prior to induction of anaesthesia may create such a shared mental model among all team members.Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess whether a short briefing on the recommendations for an unexpected difficult airway, developed by the Working Group on Paediatric Anaesthesia of the German Society for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, would influence the management of an unexpected difficult mask ventilation in an infant. The study also aims to assess whether a shared mental model would encourage the anaesthesia nurse to speak up and foster implicit coordination.Methods: Nineteen teams consisting of an anaesthesia resident and an anaesthesia nurse participated in a scenario of an urgent induction of anaesthesia in an infant. Teams were randomized to either conduct a briefing on the recommendations for an unexpected difficult airway prior to induction of anaesthesia or to have access to a Web-based cognitive aid with an emergency manual page containing the identical algorithm if needed. Induction of anaesthesia triggered upper airway obstruction and desaturation. The time course of desaturation followed published physiologic modelling. The time until the obstruction was relieved was recorded. Video recordings of the scenarios were analysed with respect to coordination patterns prior to induction as well as to coordination forms (implicit vs. explicit) during the emergency. At the end of the course, participants were asked to fill out a questionnaire.Results: Teams of both groups checked on the availability of airway equipment, but teams in the briefing group talked more often about treatment steps to relieve airway obstruction (p < 0.005). The time until the obstruction was relieved was significantly shorter in the briefing group (median: 80 s vs. 126 s; p < 0.005). In 45 % of the intervention scenarios the nurse suggested the solution to the airway problem whereas only 10 % of the nurses in the control group proposed a measure to relieve the obstruction (n.s.). Both groups showed no difference in the frequency of implicit vs. explicit coordination patterns. Nurses from the intervention group found the situation to be less an emergency and felt better prepared than nurses from the control group (p < 0.05).Conclusion: Briefings prior to anaesthesia induction in paediatric anaesthesia should include management of unanticipated problems. In a simulation setting, a briefing on treatment steps for an unexpected difficult airway improves management of an upper airway obstruction. Explicit communication of intended actions by the anaesthesiologist may foster speaking up by team members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]