Prospective observational study with the primary objective is to assess technical competence in anaesthesiology specialists who perform bronchoscopic endotracheal intubation through a supraglottic airway device (SAD), by using a global rating assessment scale (GRS) and a procedure checklist. We will use an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS)-inspired GRS that previously have been validated for fiberoptic intubation and a novel clinical checklist developed for the procedure. Secondarily, we will examine potential predictor variables.
This study is a preplanned prospective observational substudy of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) with the primary aim to compare time to intubation when using two different supraglottic airway devices (SAD) as conduit for bronchoscopic intubation: the Ambu® AuraGain LMA as compared to the i-gel LMA (reference: I-gel vs AuraGain for Bronchoscopic Intubation Through SGA (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04680169)). We will include all physicians who provide the airway management in the RCT. The primary objective is to assess technical competence/performance by using a global rating assessment scale (GRS) and a procedure checklist. We will use an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS)-inspired GRS that previously have been validated for fiberoptic intubation and a novel clinical checklist developed for the procedure. Secondarily, we will examine potential predictor variables in multivariate analyses Airway management will be video recorded. Two anaesthesiologists specialists (assessors), not otherwise involved in the trial and not employed at the hospital, will watch the video recordings of each case of airway management, i.e., the complete airway management provided by a responsible physician participant for each of the included patient participants. For each case of airway management, they will access the physician's technical performance during the attempt to perform bronchoscopic endotracheal intubation through a SAD. Assessors will complete a checklist during the procedure. Each item is dichotomously evaluated: done correctly (score=1)/done incorrectly or not performed (score=0). The checklist score represents the sum score for the 30 items (potential sum score range 0-30). Assessors will evaluate the physician's technical performance using a validated GRS, scored from 8 to 40, for each case of airway management. The GRS is based on 8 items. Each item is scored from one (poor) to five (superior). A score of three is considered 'competent' for each item. The GRS score represent the sum score for all items.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Prior to trial commencement, participants will be asked to watch a video demonstrating preparation and conduction of the procedure (bronchoscopic endotracheal intubation through a supraglottic airway device) in a patient not involved in the project. Afterwards they will submit an online test, examining knowledge of the procedure relating to the procedure checklist. After participants have watched the demonstration video and submitted the online test, trial investigator will demonstrate the procedure in the manikin; subsequently, they have the opportunity to train the procedure in the manikin with both Igel and Auragain - training estimated to take less than 30 minutes. Afterwards, they will have the opportunity to train the procedure on manikins, on their own discretion, as per usual standards for maintaining airway competence at the Anaesthesiology Department.
Nordsjaellands hospital Hilleroed
Hillerød, Denmark
Physician performance
Overall median physician performance score using an Objective Structured Assessment of Technical Skills (OSATS)-inspired validated global rating scale (GRS)
Time frame: 6 months
Checklist score
Median checklist scores using a novel check list developed for the procedure
Time frame: 6 months
Pass rate
Overall pass rate (every item in the GRS evaluation has been scored to 3 or more)
Time frame: 6 months
Self-reported confidence
Median self-reported confidence score for the procedure during the trial (numeric rating scale (NRS) score 0-10)
Time frame: 6 months
GRS score progression
Difference in GRS scores between the first and the last patient participant (expectedly the fourth patient) in whom the physician conduct airway management.
Time frame: 6 months
interrater-agreement for GRS evaluation
interrater-agreement between assessors for the GRS evaluation
Time frame: 6 months
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Enrollment
100