BackgroundCognitive aids have come to be viewed as promising tools in the management of perioperative critical events. The majority of published simulation studies have focussed on perioperative crises that are characterised by time pressure, rare occurrence, or complex management steps (e.g., cardiac arrest emergencies, management of the difficult airway). At present, there is limited information on the usefulness of cognitive aids in critical situations with moderate time pressure and complexity. Intraoperative myocardial infarction may be an emergency to which these limitations apply.MethodsAnaesthetic teams were allocated to control (no cognitive aid; n = 10) or intervention (cognitive aid provided; n = 10) groups. The primary aim of this study was to compare cognitive aid versus memory for intraoperative ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) management in a simulation of caesarean delivery under spinal anaesthesia. We identified nine evidence-based metrics of essential care from current guidelines and subdivided them into mandatory (high level of evidence; no interference with surgery) and optional (lower class of recommendation; possible impact on surgery) tasks. Six clinically relevant tasks were added by consensus. Implementation of these steps was measured by scoring task items in a binary fashion (yes/no). The interval between the diagnosis of STEMI and the first contact with the cardiac catheterisation lab was measured. To determine whether or not the cognitive aid had prompted an action, participants from the cognitive aid group were interviewed during debriefing on every single treatment step. At the end of the simulation, session participants were asked to complete a survey.ResultsThe presence of the cognitive aid did not shorten the time interval until the cardiac catheterisation lab was contacted. The availability of the cognitive aid improved task performance in the tasks identified from the guidelines (93% vs. 69%; p < 0.001) as well as overall task performance (87.5% vs. 59%; p < 0.001). The observed difference in performance can be attributed to the use of the cognitive aid, as performance from memory alone would have been comparable across both groups. Trainees appeared to derive greater benefit from the cognitive aid than did consultants and nurses.ConclusionsThe management of intraoperative ST-elevation myocardial infarction can be improved if teams use a cognitive aid. Trainees appeared to derive greater benefit from the cognitive aid than did consultants and nurses.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-017-0340-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundLack of familiarity with the content of current guidelines is a major factor associated with non-compliance by clinicians. It is conceivable that cognitive aids with regularly updated medical content can guide clinicians’ task performance by evidence-based practices, even if they are unfamiliar with the actual guideline. Acute hyponatraemia as a consequence of TURP syndrome is a rare intraoperative event, and current practice guidelines have changed from slow correction to rapid correction of serum sodium levels. The primary objective of this study was to compare the management of a simulated severe gynaecological transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) syndrome under spinal anaesthesia with either: an electronic cognitive aid, or with management from memory alone. The secondary objective was to assess the clinical relevance and participant perception of the usefulness of the cognitive aid.MethodsAnaesthetic teams were allocated to control (no cognitive aid; n = 10) or intervention (cognitive aid provided; n = 10) groups. We identified eight evidence-based management tasks for severe TURP syndrome from current guidelines and subdivided them into acute heart failure (AHF)/pulmonary oedema tasks (5) and acute hyponatraemia tasks (3). Implementation of the treatment steps was measured by scoring task items in a binary fashion (yes/no). To assess whether or not the cognitive aid had prompted a treatment step, participants from the cognitive aid group were questioned during debriefing on every single treatment step. At the end of the simulation, session participants were asked to complete a survey.ResultsTeams in the cognitive aid group considered evidence-based treatment steps significantly more often than teams of the control group (96% vs. 50% for ‘AHF/pulmonary oedema’ p < 0.001; 79% vs. 12% for ‘acute hyponatraemia’ p < 0.001). Without the cognitive aid, performance would have been comparable across both groups. Nurses, trainees, and consultants derived equal benefit from the cognitive aid.ConclusionsThe cognitive aid improved the implementation of evidence-based practices in a simulated intraoperative scenario. Cognitive aids with current medical content could help to close the translational gap between guideline publication and implementation in acute patient care. It is important that the cognitive aid should be familiar, in a format that has been used in practice and training.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-017-0365-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundAspiration is a main contributor to morbidity and mortality in anaesthesia. The ideal patient positioning for rapid sequence induction remains controversial. A head-down tilt and full cervical spine extension (Sellick) might prevent aspiration but at the same time compromise airway management. We aimed to determine the influence of three different positions during induction of general anaesthesia on the volume of aspirate and on participants’ airway management.MethodsEighty-four anaesthetic trainees and consultants participated in a prospective randomised simulation study. Anaesthesia was induced in reverse Trendelenburg position (+ 15°) in a manikin capable of dynamic fluid regurgitation. Participants were randomised to change to Trendelenburg position (− 15°) a) as soon as regurgitation was noticed, b) as soon as ‘patient’ had been anaesthetised, and c) as soon as ‘patient’ had been anaesthetised and with full cervical spine extension (Sellick). Primary endpoints were the aspirated volume and the time to intubation. Secondary endpoints were ratings of the laryngoscopic view and the intubation situation (0–100 mm).ResultsCombining head-down tilt with Sellick position significantly reduced aspiration (p < 0.005). Median time to intubate was longer in Sellick position (15 s [8–30]) as compared with the head in sniffing position (10 s [8–12.5]; p < 0.05). Participants found laryngoscopy more difficult in Sellick position (39.3 ± 27.9 mm) as compared with the sniffing position (23.1 ± 22.1 mm; p < 0.05). Both head-down tilt intubation situations were considered equally difficult: 34.8 ± 24.6 mm (Sniffing) vs. 44.2 ± 23.1 mm (Sellick; p = n.s).ConclusionsIn a simulated setting, using a manikin-based simulator capable of fluid regurgitation, a − 15° head-down tilt with Sellick position reduced the amount of aspirated fluid but increased the difficulty in visualising the vocal cords and prolonged the time taken to intubate. Assessing the airway management in the identical position in healthy patients without risk of aspiration might be a promising next step to take.