Prevalence and commonality of non-technical skills and human factors in airway management guidelines: a narrative review of the last 5 years.

The primary aim of this review was to identify, analyse and codify the prominence and nature of human factors and ergonomics within difficult airway management algorithms. A directed search across OVID Medline and PubMed databases was performed. All articles were screened for relevance to the research aims and according to predetermined exclusion criteria. We identified 26 published airway management algorithms. A coding framework was iteratively developed identifying human factors and ergonomic specific words and phrases based on the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety model. This framework was applied to the papers to delineate qualitative and quantitative results. Our results show that human factors are well represented within recent airway management guidelines. Human factors associated with work systems and processes featured more prominently than user and patient outcome measurement and adaption. Human factors are an evolving area in airway management and our results highlight that further considerations are necessary in further guideline development.

The Airway App: exploring the role of smartphone technology to capture emergency front-of-neck airway experiences internationally.

In this exploratory study we describe the utility of smartphone technology for anonymous retrospective observational data collection of emergency front-of-neck airway management. The medical community continues to debate the optimal technique for emergency front-of-neck airway management. Although individual clinicians infrequently perform this procedure, hundreds are performed annually worldwide. Ubiquitous smartphone technology and internet connectivity have created the opportunity to collect these data. We created the 'Airway App', a smartphone application to capture the experiences of healthcare providers involved in emergency front-of-neck airway procedures. In the first 18-month period, 104 emergency front-of-neck airway management reports were received; 99 (95%) were internally valid and unique from 21 countries. Eighty-one (82%) were performed by non-surgeons and 63 (64%) were 'cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate' emergencies. Overall first-attempt success varied by technique; 45 scalpel-bougie cricothyroidotomy (37 first-attempt success), 25 surgical cricothyroidotomy (15 first-attempt success), eight cannula cricothyroidotomy (five first-attempt success), six wire-guided cricothyroidotomy (three first-attempt success) and 15 tracheostomy reports (11 first-attempt success). The most commonly reported positive human factors were good communication, good teamwork and/or skilled personnel. The most commonly reported negative human factors were fixation on multiple tracheal intubation attempts, delay in initiating emergency front-of-neck airway and/or the failure to plan for failure. Due to the anonymous nature of reporting, reports are open to recollection bias and spurious reporting. We conclude collection of data using a smartphone application is feasible and has the potential to expand our knowledge of emergency front-of-neck airway management.

Transtracheal jet ventilation in the 'can't intubate can't oxygenate' emergency: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Transtracheal jet ventilation (TTJV) is recommended in several airway guidelines as a potentially life-saving procedure during the 'Can't Intubate Can't Oxygenate' (CICO) emergency. Some studies have questioned its effectiveness. METHODS: Our goal was to determine the complication rates of TTJV in the CICO emergency compared with the emergency setting where CICO is not described (non-CICO emergency) or elective surgical setting. Several databases of published and unpublished literature were searched systematically for studies describing TTJV in human subjects. Complications were categorized as device failure, barotrauma (including subcutaneous emphysema), and miscellaneous. Device failure was defined by the inability to place and/or use the TTJV device, not patient survival. RESULTS: Forty-four studies (428 procedures) met the inclusion criteria. Four studies included both emergency and elective procedures. Thirty studies described 132 emergency TTJV procedures; 90 were CICO emergencies. Eighteen studies described 296 elective TTJV procedures. Device failure occurred in 42% of CICO emergency vs 0% of non-CICO emergency (P<0.001) and 0.3% of elective procedures (P<0.001). Barotrauma occurred in 32% of CICO emergency vs 7% of non-CICO emergency (P<0.001) and 8% of elective procedures (P<0.001). The total number of procedures with any complication was 51% of CICO emergency vs 7% of non-CICO emergency (P<0.001) and 8% of elective procedures (P<0.001). Several reports described TTJV-related subcutaneous emphysema hampering subsequent attempts at surgical airway or tracheal intubation. CONCLUSIONS: TTJV is associated with a high risk of device failure and barotrauma in the CICO emergency. Guidelines and recommendations supporting the use of TTJV in CICO should be reconsidered.

A comparison of medical physics training and education programs--Canada and Australia.

An overview and comparison of medical physics clinical training, academic education, and national certification/accreditation of individual professionals in Canada and Australia is presented. Topics discussed include program organization, funding, fees, administration, time requirements, content, program accreditation, and levels of certification/accreditation of individual Medical Physicists. Differences in the training, education, and certification/accreditation approaches between the two countries are highlighted. The possibility of mutual recognition of certified/accredited Medical Physicists is examined.

Interventions for learning disabled sex offenders.

BACKGROUND: The management of sex offenders is a major public concern. Behavioural and pharmacological interventions have been used for many years and more recently cognitive behavioural based interventions have become popular around the world. Programmes designed for the general population have been modified for those sex offenders with learning disability, to address their cognitive deficits. The efficacy of these modified programmes is unclear. OBJECTIVES: To determine the efficacy of interventions with learning disabled sex offenders. SEARCH STRATEGY: The reviewers searched the Cochrane Library 2006 (Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to Sept 2006), Embase (1980 to September 2006), CINAHL (1982 to September 2006), PsycINFO (1872 to September 2006), Biological Abstracts (1980 to September 2006). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials comparing an intervention for learning disabled sex offenders to any other, or no intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were independently extracted. MAIN RESULTS: No randomised controlled trial was identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Using the methods described the reviewers found no randomised controlled trial evidence to guide the use of interventions for learning disabled sex offenders. Until the urgent need for randomised controlled trials is met, clinical practice will continue to be guided by either extrapolation of evidence from randomised controlled trials involving sex offenders without learning disability or non-randomised trial evidence of interventions for the learning disabled sex offender.

Miniature LiF:Mg,Cu,P TLDs to study the effect of applicator material in 192-Ir brachytherapy.

Dose calculations in brachytherapy planning typically don't take into account inhomogeneities and the material of applicators. We evaluated the justification of the latter by investigating the dose delivered in 192-Ir interstitial implants employing plastic catheters and steel needles using miniature LiF:Mg,Cu,P thermoluminescence dosimeters (TLDs) which fit in the applicators. Within the uncertainty of the measurement (+/- 5%) no difference could be found in the dose distribution from 192Ir in steel needles or plastic catheters. Computerized treatment planning (Philips/ADAC Pinnacle) was in good agreement with the measured data.

Olanzapine for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: Olanzapine is an atypical antipsychotic reported to be effective without producing disabling extrapyramidal adverse effects associated with older, typical antipsychotic drugs. OBJECTIVES: To determine the clinical effects and safety of olanzapine compared with placebo, typical and other atypical antipsychotic drugs for schizophrenia and schizophreniform psychoses. SEARCH STRATEGY: We updated the first search [Biological Abstracts (1980-1999), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 1999), EMBASE (1980-1999), MEDLINE (1966-1999), PsycLIT (1974-1999) and The Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register (October 2000)] in October 2004 using the Cochrane Schizophrenia's Group's register of trials. We also searched references of all included studies for further trials, and contacted relevant pharmaceutical companies and authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials comparing olanzapine with placebo or any antipsychotic treatment for people with schizophrenia or schizophreniform psychoses. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently extracted data and, for homogeneous dichotomous data, calculated the random effects relative risk (RR), the 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the number needed to treat (NNT) on an intention-to-treat basis. For continuous data we calculated weighted mean differences. MAIN RESULTS: Fifty five trials are included (total n>10000 people with schizophrenia). Attrition from olanzapine versus placebo studies was >50% by six weeks, leaving interpretation of results problematic. Olanzapine appeared superior to placebo at six weeks for the outcome of 'no important clinical response' (any dose, 2 RCTs n=418, RR 0.88 CI 0.8 to 0.1, NNT 8 CI 5 to 27). Although dizziness and dry mouth were reported more frequently in the olanzapine-treated group, this did not reach statistical significance. The olanzapine group gained more weight. When compared with typical antipsychotic drugs, data from several small trials are incomplete. With high attrition in both groups (14 RCTs, n=3344, 38% attrition by six weeks, RR 0.81 CI 0.65 to 1.02) the assumptions included in all data are considerable. For the short term outcome of 'no important clinical response', olanzapine seems as effective as typical antipsychotics (4 RCTs, n=2778, RR 0.90 CI 0.76 to 1.06). People allocated olanzapine experienced fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects than those given typical antipsychotics. Weight change data for the short term are not statistically significant but results between three to 12 months suggest a clinically important average gain of four kilograms for people given olanzapine (4 RCTs, n=186, WMD 4.62, CI 0.6 to 8.64). Twenty three percent of people in trials of olanzapine and other atypical drugs left by eight weeks; 48% by three to12 months (11 RCTs, n=1847, RR 0.91 CI 0.82 to 1.00). There is little to choose between the atypicals, although olanzapine may cause fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects than other drugs in this category. Olanzapine produces more weight gain than other atypicals with some differences reaching conventional levels of statistical significance (1 RCT, n=980, RR gain at 2 years 1.73 CI 1.49 to 2.00, NNH 5 CI 4 to 7). There are very few data for people with first episode illness (1 RCT, duration 6 weeks, n=42). For people with treatment-resistant illness there were no clear differences between olanzapine and clozapine (4 RCTs, n=457). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The large proportion of participants leaving studies early in these trials makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions on olanzapine's clinical effects. For people with schizophrenia it may offer antipsychotic efficacy with fewer extrapyramidal adverse effects than typical drugs, but more weight gain. There is a need for further large, long-term randomised trials with more comprehensive data.

Antipsychotic medication versus placebo for people with both schizophrenia and learning disability.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medication is the standard treatment for people with learning disability and schizophrenia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of any antipsychotic medication compared with placebo for treating people with a dual diagnosis of learning disability and schizophrenia. SEARCH STRATEGY: For this update we searched the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Register of trials (July 2004), relevant reference lists and sought unpublished data from pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised clinical trials of longer than one month's duration, involving people with both schizophrenia and learning disability (a measured IQ of 70 or less) that evaluated antipsychotic medication versus placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We reliably selected and assessed studies for methodological quality. Two reviewers, working independently, extracted data. We would have analysed dichotomous data on an intention-to-treat basis and presented continuous data with 65% completion rate. For dichotomous outcomes, our intention was to estimate a fixed effect relative risk (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) together with the number needed to treat/harm (NNT/H). MAIN RESULTS: We found only one relevant randomised trial using our search method and this had to be excluded. This study included four people with a dual diagnosis of schizophrenia and learning disability, but results were only available for two of the participants. It was unclear as to which groups the other two people were allocated. In order to display the data, we would have had to have made too many assumptions about these two people and any results would be uninformative and potentially misleading. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: Using the methods described we found no randomised controlled trial evidence to guide the use of antipsychotic medication for people with both learning disability and schizophrenia. Until the urgent need for randomised controlled trials is met, clinical practice will continue to be guided by extrapolation of evidence from randomised controlled trials involving people with schizophrenia, but without learning disability, and non-randomised trials of those with learning disability and schizophrenia.

Antipsychotic medication for challenging behaviour in people with learning disability.

BACKGROUND: The term 'challenging behaviour', in the absence of psychiatric disorder, encompasses a wide range of behaviours that may be harmful to people or property, may be difficult to manage and may limit access to community facilities. Antipsychotic medications have been used to modify such behaviours in people with learning disability, but there is little evidence to suggest that the benefits outweigh the risks. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness of antipsychotic medication for people with learning disability and challenging behaviour without additional mental illness. SEARCH STRATEGY: Biological Abstracts, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and BIOSIS were searched. Further references were sought from published trials and pharmaceutical companies. Trials were reliably identified and data extracted. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials of antipsychotic medication versus placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Reviewers independently evaluated and analysed data on an intention to treat basis. Data were evaluated at 4, 8 and 12 weeks as longer follow-up data were not available. Reviewers assumed that those subjects lost to follow-up had a bad outcome. MAIN RESULTS: Only nine randomised controlled trials could be included in the analyses. These provided no evidence of whether antipsychotic medication helps or harms adults with learning disability and challenging behaviour. REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: There are limited data on this important issue and more research is urgently needed.