Summary Awake tracheal intubation has a high success rate and a favourable safety profile but is underused in cases of anticipated difficult airway management. These guidelines are a comprehensive document to support decision making, preparation and practical performance of awake tracheal intubation. We performed a systematic review of the literature seeking all of the available evidence for each element of awake tracheal intubation in order to make recommendations. In the absence of high‐quality evidence, expert consensus and a Delphi study were used to formulate recommendations. We highlight key areas of awake tracheal intubation in which specific recommendations were made, which included: indications; procedural setup; checklists; oxygenation; airway topicalisation; sedation; verification of tracheal tube position; complications; management of unsuccessful awake tracheal intubation; post‐tracheal intubation management; consent; and training. We recognise that there are a range of techniques and regimens that may be effective and one such example technique is included. Breaking down the key practical elements of awake tracheal intubation into sedation, topicalisation, oxygenation and performance might help practitioners to plan, perform and address complications. These guidelines aim to support clinical practice and help lower the threshold for performing awake tracheal intubation when indicated.
SummaryIn a randomised cross-over study, we compared the performance of the single use i-gel supraglottic airway and reusable classic laryngeal mask airway (cLMA TM ) in 50 healthy anaesthetised patients who were breathing spontaneously. Primary outcome was successful insertion at first attempt. Secondary outcomes included overall insertion success rate, ease of insertion, leak pressure and fibreoptic position. Success rate for insertion at the first attempt was significantly different (54% with i-gel vs 86% with cLMA; p = 0.001). Overall success after two attempts (when the anaesthetist was allowed to change the size of the device) improved to 84% with i-gel vs 92% with cLMA; p = 0.22. In 14 patients, the i-gel when used first needed to be replaced with a larger size. Leak pressure was higher for the i-gel (median cm H 2 O than the cLMA 17 [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22] cm H 2 O; p = 0.023). The fibreoptic view through the device was significantly better with the i-gel than the cLMA, which was statistically significant (p = 0.03). We conclude that, with its current sizing recommendations, the i-gel is not an acceptable alternative to cLMA. However because of the significantly improved success rate after a larger sized i-gel was used, we recommend the manufacturer to review the sizing guidelines to improve the success rate.
SummaryData were collected prospectively on the use of the gum elastic bougie in 200 patients. The bougie was successfully inserted into the trachea and tracheal intubation was accomplished in 199 cases. The bougie was inserted into the trachea at the ®rst attempt in 178 cases. In nine cases (4.5%) a second, more experienced, clinician was required. In 173 cases, the grades of view were recorded before and after the application of laryngeal pressure; pressure improved the view in 80 cases (46%), had no effect in 89 (51%) and worsened the view in four cases (2%). Various recommendations for optimal external laryngeal pressure and use of the bougie were not followed on 15±64% of occasions. There is a need for better education in these techniques.
BackgroundThe amount of information needed by doctors has exploded. The nature of knowledge (explicit and tacit) and processes of knowledge acquisition and participation are complex. Aiming to assist workplace learning, Wales Deanery funded “iDoc”, a project offering trainee doctors a Smartphone library of medical textbooks.MethodsData on trainee doctors’ (Foundation Year 2) workplace information seeking practice was collected by questionnaire in 2011 (n = 260). iDoc baseline questionnaires (n = 193) collected data on Smartphone usage alongside other workplace information sources. Case reports (n = 117) detail specific instances of Smartphone use.ResultsMost frequently (daily) used information sources in the workplace: senior medical staff (80% F2 survey; 79% iDoc baseline); peers (70%; 58%); and other medical/nursing team staff (53% both datasets). Smartphones were used more frequently by males (p < 0.01). Foundation Year 1 (newly qualified) was judged the most useful time to have a Smartphone library because of increased responsibility and lack of knowledge/experience.Preferred information source varied by question type: hard copy texts for information-based questions; varied resources for skills queries; and seniors for more complex problems. Case reports showed mobile technology used for simple (information-based), complex (problem-based) clinical questions and clinical procedures (skills-based scenarios). From thematic analysis, the Smartphone library assisted: teaching and learning from observation; transition from medical student to new doctor; trainee doctors’ discussions with seniors; independent practice; patient care; and this ‘just-in-time’ access to reliable information supported confident and efficient decision-making.ConclusionA variety of information sources are used regularly in the workplace. Colleagues are used daily but seniors are not always available. During transitions, constant access to the electronic library was valued. It helped prepare trainee doctors for discussions with their seniors, assisting the interchange between explicit and tacit knowledge.By supporting accurate prescribing and treatment planning, the electronic library contributed to enhanced patient care. Trainees were more rapidly able to medicate patients to reduce pain and more quickly call for specific assessments. However, clinical decision-making often requires dialogue: what Smartphone technology can do is augment, not replace, discussion with their colleagues in the community of practice.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.