Difficult airway simulation-based training for anaesthesiologists: efficacy and skills retention within six months.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate how anaesthesiologists manage a "cannot intubate, can ventilate" (CI) and "cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" (CICV) scenarios, and how following simulation training will affect their guideline adherence, skills and decision-making immediately after training and 6 months later. METHODS: A prospective controlled study was conducted from July to December 2022. Anaesthesiologists who applied for the continuous medical education course "Difficult Airway Management" were involved in the study. Each volunteer participated in two simulation scenarios (CI, CICV) with structural debriefing after each scenario. After the first simulation round, volunteers were trained in difficult airway management according to DAS guidelines, using the same equipment as during the simulation. The participants repeated the simulation scenarios the day after the training and six months later. The primary and secondary endpoints were compared between three rounds: initial simulation (Group 1), immediately after training (Group 2), and six months after training (Group 3). RESULTS: A total of 24 anaesthesiologists consented to participate in the study and completed the initial survey form. During the first session, 83.3% of participants had at least one major deviation from the DAS protocol. During the first CICV scenario, 79% of participants made at least one deviation from the DAS protocol. The second time after simulation training, significantly better results were achieved: the number of anaesthesiologists, who attempted more than 3 laryngoscopies decreased (OR = 7 [1.8-26.8], p = 0.006 right after training and OR = 3.9 [1.06-14.4], p = 0.035 6 month later); the number, who skipped the supralaryngeal device attempt, call for help and failure to initiate surgical airway also decreased. Simulation training also significantly decreases the time to call for help, cricothyroidotomy initiation time, and mean desaturation time and increases the odds ratio of successful cricothyroidotomy (OR 0.02 [0.003-0.14], p < 0.0001 right after training and OR = OR 0.02 [0.003-0.16] 6 months after training). CONCLUSIONS: Anaesthesiologists usually display major deviations from DAS guidelines while managing CI and CICV scenarios. Simulation training improves their guideline adherence, skills, and decision-making when repeating the simulation immediately after training and 6 months later. STUDY REGISTRATION: NCT05913492, clinicaltrials.gov, 22/06/2023.

WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and Anesthesia Equipment Checklist efficacy in war-affected low-resource settings: a prospective two-arm multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: The Russian invasion of Ukraine has caused huge damage to all medical infrastructure and impairs patient safety. The aim of our study was to assess the impact of implementation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and Anesthesia Equipment Checklist on patient outcomes and adherence to safety standards in low-resource settings, affected by an ongoing war. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A prospective multicenter study was conducted in 6 large Ukrainian hospitals. The study was conducted in two phases: a control period, lasting five months, followed by a study period, when the two checklists (the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and Anesthetic Equipment Checklist) were introduced in the designated operating rooms. The primary outcomes were any major complications, including death, during 30 days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2237 surgical procedures were recorded - 1178 in the control group and 1059 in the intervention group. Major postoperative complications occurred in 82 (6.9%) patients in the control group and in 25 (2.4%) in the study group (OR = 0.32 [0.19-0.52], P < 0.001). The effect on the incidence of specific postoperative complications was statistically significant for the "surgical infection" (1.5% vs. 0.1%; OR = 0.31 [0.1-0.8], P = 0.01) and "reoperation" (1.7% vs. 0.5%; OR = 0.32 [0.1-0.8], P = 0.01) cate-gories as well as for the 30-day mortality (1.3% vs. 0.3%; OR = 0.35 [0.1-0.9], P = 0.03). Better adherence to basic WHO surgical safety recommendations was observed for every check mentioned in the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist ( P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The WHO Surgical Safety Checklist and the Anesthesia Equipment Checklist improve patient outcomes in war-affected low-resource settings.