Introduction This statement was planned on 11 March 2020 to provide clinical guidance and aid staff preparation for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. It has been widely endorsed by relevant specialty colleges and societies. Main recommendations Generic guidelines exist for the intubation of different patient groups, as do resources to facilitate airway rescue and transition to the “can't intubate, can't oxygenate” scenario. They should be followed where they do not contradict our specific recommendations for the COVID‐19 patient group. Consideration should be given to using a checklist that has been specifically modified for the COVID‐19 patient group. Early intubation should be considered to prevent the additional risk to staff of emergency intubation and to avoid prolonged use of high flow nasal oxygen or non‐invasive ventilation. Significant institutional preparation is required to optimise staff and patient safety in preparing for the airway management of the COVID‐19 patient group. The principles for airway management should be the same for all patients with COVID‐19 (asymptomatic, mild or critically unwell). Safe, simple, familiar, reliable and robust practices should be adopted for all episodes of airway management for patients with COVID‐19. Changes in management as a result of this statement Airway clinicians in Australia and New Zealand should now already be involved in regular intensive training for the airway management of the COVID‐19 patient group. This training should focus on the principles of early intervention, meticulous planning, vigilant infection control, efficient processes, clear communication and standardised practice.

Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Summary It is unclear how the recent local and international focus on systems issues and human factors in ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ events has impacted institutional preparedness in Australia and New Zealand. This study attempts to capture a snapshot of current practices in Australian and New Zealand teaching hospitals with regard to preparedness to prevent and manage ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ events. All Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists’ teaching hospitals were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 33 questions on terminology, equipment, cognitive aids, training and quality assurance. Follow‐up was by both email and telephone. Responses were received from 129 (91%) of the 142 sites. The survey revealed both countries have largely moved to point‐of‐care ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ equipment. There were regional differences reported, with Australia favouring equipment, cognitive aids and teaching that supports a combined cannula and scalpel approach to ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’, whilst New Zealand favours those promoting a scalpel‐only approach. A lack of consistency with the terminology used around ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ both within and between the two countries was also identified. This survey has revealed a generally reassuringly high degree of institutional preparedness to prevent and manage ‘can't intubate, can't oxygenate’ events across both countries but with strong regional differences in approaches. Little is known of the institutional practices outside these countries, making international comparison difficult.

Technical and psychological factors make performance of an emergency front-of-neck airway (eFONA) a challenging procedure for clinical teams involved in airway management. When 'cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate' (CICO) emergencies occur, eFONA is frequently performed too late or not at all. The concept of transition to eFONA comprises simultaneous efforts to prevent and prepare for eFONA before a declaration of CICO in an effort to facilitate its timely and effective implementation. Although such a transition represents an appealing idea, attention to many aspects of airway practice is required for it to become an effective intervention.

After rescuing an airway with a supraglottic airway device, a method to convert it to a cuffed tracheal tube is often needed. The best method to do this has never been directly studied. We compared three techniques for conversion of a standard LMA Unique airway to a cuffed endotracheal tube using a fibrescope. The primary endpoint was time to intubation, with secondary endpoints of success rate, perceived difficulty and preferred technique. We also investigated the relationship between level of training and prior training and experience with the techniques on the primary outcome. The mean (95% CI) time to intubation using a direct tracheal tube technique of 37 (31-42) s was significantly shorter than either the Aintree intubation catheter technique at 70 (60-80) s, or a guidewire technique at 126 (110-141) s (p < 0.001). Most (13/24) participants rated the tracheal tube as their preferred technique, while 11/24 preferred the Aintree technique. In terms of perceived difficulty, 23/24, 21/24 and 9/24 participants rated the tracheal tube technique, Aintree technique and guidewire technique, respectively, as either very easy or easy. There was no relationship between prior training, prior experience or level of training on time to completion of any of the techniques. We conclude the tracheal tube and Aintree techniques both provide a rapid and easy method for conversion of a supraglottic airway device to a cuffed tracheal tube. The guidewire technique cannot be recommended.