Optimising remote site airway management kit dump using the SCRAM bag-a randomised controlled trial

National survey on the current status of airway management in China

Apparently, understanding airway management status may help to reduce risk and improve clinical practice. Given these facts, our team conducted a second survey on the current status of airway management for mainland China following our 2016 national airway survey. The national survey was conducted from November 7 to November 28, 2022. An electronic survey was sent to the New Youth Anesthesia Forum, where Chinese anesthesiologists completed the questionnaire via WeChat. A total of 3783 respondents completed the survey, with a response rate of 72.14%. So far, in 2022, 34.84% of anesthesiologists canceled or delayed surgery at least once due to difficult airway. For the anticipated difficult airway management, 66.11% of physicians would choose awake intubation under sedation and topical anesthesia, while the percentage seeking help has decreased compared to the 2016 survey. When encountering an emergency, 74.20% of respondents prefer to use the needle cricothyrotomy, albeit less than a quarter have actually performed it. Anesthesiologists with difficult airway training experience reached 72.96%, with a significant difference in participation between participants in Tier 3 hospitals and those in other levels of hospitals (P < 0.001). The videolaryngoscope, laryngeal mask, and flexible intubation scope were equipped at 97.18%, 95.96%, and 62.89%, respectively. Additionally, the percentage of brain damage or death caused by difficult airways was significantly decreased. The study may be the best reference for understanding the current status of airway management in China, revealing the current advancements and deficiencies. The future focus of airway management remains on training and education.

Anaesthesia cart standardisation expedites supply retrieval: A simulation study with patient safety implications

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesia providers often work at a variety of perioperative and procedural locations. However, the layout of anaesthesia supplies and equipment is often inconsistent from operating theatre to operating theatre. This lack of standardisation may create delays in identification and retrieval of supplies. The primary goal of this study was to compare the duration of time required by anaesthesia providers to identify and retrieve a list of anaesthesia supplies prior to and after standardisation of the location for anaesthesia supplies.

METHODS

In this observational simulation study, a pre-set list of ten items that may be rapidly needed when caring for patients was created. Volunteer anaesthesia providers were then timed retrieving these in two different operating theatres before and after anaesthesia cart standardisation. Cumulative time to retrieve all items was recorded in seconds. Participants were evaluated regarding mean time to compete the task before and after supply standardisation. Paired t-test were used to assess mean time to retrieve the ten items both before and after standardisation and between the two operating theatre locations. Providers were also evaluated on their familiarity with the operating theatre location, and this was assessed by chi-square tests of homogeneity. Multivariable generalised linear modelling was used to evaluate the impact of covariables on the change in time.

RESULTS

Data from 18 anaesthesia providers was collected. Mean (95% confidence interval) time in seconds to retrieve items was decreased by 45% after supply standardisation (105.3 [88.6, 121.9 vs 57.1 [50.8, 63.5]; p < 0.001) with a mean (95% confidence interval) reduction of 48.1 seconds (30.6, 65.6; p < 0.001). Providers who worked primarily at that location also had faster times to complete the task. In a multivariable regression model that considered both the provider's familiarity with the location and the simulation attempt (Operating theatre 1 or Operating theatre 2), the mean time to retrieve all items remained reduced by 48.1 seconds (95% confidence interval: 31.9-64.4) after supply standardisation (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Standardisation of the location for anaesthesia supplies decreased the time for on-demand item retrieval. Retrieval times were most improved after standardisation for providers in an unfamiliar area. Supply standardisation of anaesthesia carts across perioperative and procedural sites could result in more timely interventions in patient care and efficiency.

Design and Implementation of Airway Response Teams to Improve the Practice of Emergency Airway Management

Emergency airway management (EAM) is a commonly performed procedure in the critical care setting. Despite clinical advances that help practitioners identify patients at risk for having a difficult airway, improved airway management tools, and algorithms that guide clinical decision-making, the practice of EAM is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Evidence suggests that a dedicated airway response team (ART) can help mitigate the risks associated with EAM and provide a framework for airway management in acute settings. We review the risks and challenges related to EAM and describe strategies to improve patient care and outcomes via implementation of an ART.

Novel Technologies and Techniques for Prehospital Airway Management: An NAEMSP Position Statement and Resource Document

Novel technologies and techniques can influence airway management execution as well as procedural and clinical outcomes. While conventional wisdom underscores the need for rigorous scientific data as a foundation before implementation, high-quality supporting evidence is frequently not available for the prehospital setting. Therefore, implementation decisions are often based upon preliminary or evolving data, or pragmatic information from clinical use. When considering novel technologies and techniques. NAEMSP recommends:Prior to implementing a novel technology or technique, a thorough assessment using the best available scientific data should be conducted on the technical details of the novel approach, as well as the potential effects on operations and outcomes.The decision and degree of effort to adopt, implement, and monitor a novel technology or technique in the prehospital setting will vary by the quality of the best available scientific and clinical information:• Routine use - Technologies and techniques with ample observational but limited or no interventional clinical trial data, or with strong supporting in-hospital data. These techniques may be reasonably adopted in the prehospital setting. This includes video laryngoscopy and bougie-assisted intubation. • Limited use - Technologies and techniques with ample pragmatic clinical use information but limited supporting scientific data. These techniques may be considered in the prehospital setting. This includes suction-assisted laryngoscopy and airway decontamination and cognitive aids. • Rare use - Technologies and techniques with minimal clinical use information. Use of these techniques should be limited in the prehospital setting until evidence exists from more stable clinical environments. This includes intubation boxes.The use of novel technologies and techniques must be accompanied by systematic collection and assessment of data for the purposes of quality improvement, including linkages to patient clinical outcomes.EMS leaders should clearly identify the pathways needed to generate high-quality supporting scientific evidence for novel technologies and techniques.