TY - JOUR
T1 - Advanced airway management simulation training in medical education
T2 - A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Kennedy, Cassie C.
AU - Cannon, Eric K.
AU - Warner, David O.
AU - Cook, David A.
PY - 2014/1
Y1 - 2014/1
N2 - OBJECTIVE:: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on teaching airway management using technology-enhanced simulation. DATA SOURCES:: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles through May 11, 2011. STUDY SELECTION:: Observational or controlled trials instructing medical professionals in direct or fiberoptic intubation, surgical airway, and/or supraglottic airway using technology-enhanced simulation were included. Two reviewers determined eligibility. DATA EXTRACTION:: Study quality, instructional design, and outcome data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS:: Of 10,904 articles screened, 76 studies were included (n = 5,226 participants). We used random effects meta-analysis to pool results. In comparison with no intervention, simulation training was associated with improved outcomes for knowledge (standardized mean difference, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.19-1.35]; n = 7 studies) and skill (1.01 [0.68-1.34]; n = 28) but not for behavior (0.52 [-0.30 to 1.34]; n = 4) or patient outcomes (-0.12 [-0.41 to 0.16]; n = 4). In comparison with nonsimulation interventions, simulation training was associated with increased learner satisfaction (0.54 [0.37-0.71]; n = 2), improved skills (0.64 [0.12-1.16]; n = 5), and patient outcomes (0.86 [0.12-1.59]; n = 3) but not knowledge (0.29 [-0.28 to 0.86]; n = 4). We found few comparative effectiveness studies exploring how to optimize the use of simulation-based training, and these revealed inconsistent results. For example, animal models were found superior to manikins in one study (p = 0.004) using outcome of task speed but inferior in another study in terms of skill ratings (p = 0.02). Five studies comparing simulators of high versus low technical sophistication found no significant difference in skill outcomes (p > 0.31). Limitations of this review include heterogeneity (I > 50% for most analysis) and variation in quality among primary studies. CONCLUSIONS:: Simulation-based airway management curriculum is superior to no intervention and nonsimulation intervention for important education outcomes. Further research is required to fine-tune optimal curricular design.
AB - OBJECTIVE:: To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature on teaching airway management using technology-enhanced simulation. DATA SOURCES:: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science, and Scopus for eligible articles through May 11, 2011. STUDY SELECTION:: Observational or controlled trials instructing medical professionals in direct or fiberoptic intubation, surgical airway, and/or supraglottic airway using technology-enhanced simulation were included. Two reviewers determined eligibility. DATA EXTRACTION:: Study quality, instructional design, and outcome data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS:: Of 10,904 articles screened, 76 studies were included (n = 5,226 participants). We used random effects meta-analysis to pool results. In comparison with no intervention, simulation training was associated with improved outcomes for knowledge (standardized mean difference, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.19-1.35]; n = 7 studies) and skill (1.01 [0.68-1.34]; n = 28) but not for behavior (0.52 [-0.30 to 1.34]; n = 4) or patient outcomes (-0.12 [-0.41 to 0.16]; n = 4). In comparison with nonsimulation interventions, simulation training was associated with increased learner satisfaction (0.54 [0.37-0.71]; n = 2), improved skills (0.64 [0.12-1.16]; n = 5), and patient outcomes (0.86 [0.12-1.59]; n = 3) but not knowledge (0.29 [-0.28 to 0.86]; n = 4). We found few comparative effectiveness studies exploring how to optimize the use of simulation-based training, and these revealed inconsistent results. For example, animal models were found superior to manikins in one study (p = 0.004) using outcome of task speed but inferior in another study in terms of skill ratings (p = 0.02). Five studies comparing simulators of high versus low technical sophistication found no significant difference in skill outcomes (p > 0.31). Limitations of this review include heterogeneity (I > 50% for most analysis) and variation in quality among primary studies. CONCLUSIONS:: Simulation-based airway management curriculum is superior to no intervention and nonsimulation intervention for important education outcomes. Further research is required to fine-tune optimal curricular design.
KW - airway management
KW - anesthesia
KW - intubation
KW - laryngeal mask airway
KW - medical education
KW - meta-analysis
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84891555341&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84891555341&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a721f
DO - 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a721f
M3 - Review article
AN - SCOPUS:84891555341
SN - 0090-3493
VL - 42
SP - 169
EP - 178
JO - Critical care medicine
JF - Critical care medicine
IS - 1
ER -