Airway management education: simulation based training versus non-simulation based training-A systematic review and meta-analyses

Yanxia Sun, Chuxiong Pan, Tianzuo Li, Tong J Gan, Yanxia Sun, Chuxiong Pan, Tianzuo Li, Tong J Gan

Abstract

Background: Simulation-based training (SBT) has become a standard for medical education. However, the efficacy of simulation based training in airway management education remains unclear.

Methods: The aim of this study was to evaluate all published evidence comparing the effectiveness of SBT for airway management versus non-simulation based training (NSBT) on learner and patient outcomes. Systematic review with meta-analyses were used. Data were derived from PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception to May 2016. Published comparative trials that evaluated the effect of SBT on airway management training in compared with NSBT were considered. The effect sizes with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for outcomes measures.

Results: Seventeen eligible studies were included. SBT was associated with improved behavior performance [standardized mean difference (SMD):0.30, 95% CI: 0.06 to 0.54] in comparison with NSBT. However, the benefits of SBT were not seen in time-skill (SMD:-0.13, 95% CI: -0.82 to 0.52), written examination score (SMD: 0.39, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.86) and success rate of procedure completion on patients [relative risk (RR): 1.26, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.66].

Conclusion: SBT may be not superior to NSBT on airway management training.

Keywords: Airway management; Simulation; Training.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of study selection
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Meta-analyses of the effect of simulation-based training compared with non-simulation instruction on learning outcomes. Panel 2a shows the standardized mean difference in time-skill, random-effects model. Panel 2b shows the standardized mean difference in behavior performance, fixed-effects model. Panel 2c shows the standardized mean difference in examination score, random-effects model

References

    1. Ringsted C, Schroeder TV, Henriksen J, et al. Medical students’ experience in practical skills is far from stakeholders’ expectations. Med Teach. 2001;23:412–6. doi: 10.1080/01421590120043017.
    1. Ziv A, Wolpe PR, Small SD, Glick S. Simulation-based medical education: an ethical imperative. Acad Med. 2003;78:783–8. doi: 10.1097/00001888-200308000-00006.
    1. Issenberg SB, McGaghie WC, Petrusa ER, Lee Gordon D, Scalese RJ. Features and uses of high-fidelity medical simulations that lead to effective learning: a BEME systematic review. Med Teach. 2005;27:10–28. doi: 10.1080/01421590500046924.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
    1. Ogden PE, Cobbs LS, Howell MR, Sibbitt SJ, DiPette DJ. Clinical simulation: importance to the internal medicine educational mission. Am J Med. 2007;120:820–4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2007.06.017.
    1. Reed DA, Cook DA, Beckman TJ, Levine RB, Kern DE, Wright SM. Association between funding and quality of published medical education research. JAMA. 2007;298:1002–9. doi: 10.1001/jama.298.9.1002.
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2003;327:557–60. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557.
    1. Ovassapian A, Yelich SJ, Dykes MH, Golman ME. Learning fibreoptic intubation: use of simulators v. traditional teaching. Br J Anaesth. 1988;61:217–20. doi: 10.1093/bja/61.2.217.
    1. Naik VN, Matsumoto ED, Houston PL, et al. Fiberoptic orotracheal intubation on anesthetized patients: do manipulation skills learned on a simple model transfer into the operating room? Anesthesiology. 2001;95:343–8. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200108000-00014.
    1. Ost D, DeRosiers A, Britt EJ, Fein AM, Lesser ML, Mehta AC. Assessment of a bronchoscopy simulator. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164:2248–55. doi: 10.1164/ajrccm.164.12.2102087.
    1. Modell JH, Cantwell S, Hardcastle J, Robertson S, Pablo L. Using the human patient simulator to educate students of veterinary medicine. J Vet Med Educ. 2002;29:111–6. doi: 10.3138/jvme.29.2.111.
    1. Morgan PJ, Cleave-Hogg D, McIlroy J, Devitt JH. Simulation technology: a comparison of experiential and visual learning for undergraduate medical students. Anesthesiology. 2002;96:10–6. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200201000-00008.
    1. Hall RE, Plant JR, Bands CJ, Wall AR, Kang J, Hall CA. Human patient simulation is effective for teaching paramedic students endotracheal intubation. Acad Emerg Med. 2005;12:850–5. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2005.tb00961.x.
    1. Chen JS, Hsu HH, Lai IR, et al. Validation of a computer-based bronchoscopy simulator developed in Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2006;105:569–76. doi: 10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60152-2.
    1. Hallikainen J, Vaisanen O, Randell T, Tarkkila P, Rosenberg PH, Niemi-Murola L. Teaching anaesthesia induction to medical students: comparison between full-scale simulation and supervised teaching in the operating theatre. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2009;26:101–4. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e32831a6a76.
    1. Gaies MG, Morris SA, Hafler JP, et al. Reforming procedural skills training for pediatric residents: a randomized, interventional trial. Pediatrics. 2009;124:610–9. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-2658.
    1. Wenk M, Waurick R, Schotes D, et al. Simulation-based medical education is no better than problem-based discussions and induces misjudgment in self-assessment. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2009;14:159–71. doi: 10.1007/s10459-008-9098-2.
    1. Campos JH, Hallam EA, Ueda K. Training in placement of the left-sided double-lumen tube among non-thoracic anaesthesiologists: intubation model simulator versus computer-based digital video disc, a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2011;28:169–74. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0b013e328340c332.
    1. Smith ME, Leung BC, Sharma R, Nazeer S, McFerran DJ. A randomized controlled trial of nasolaryngoscopy training techniques. Laryngoscope. 2014;124:2034–8. doi: 10.1002/lary.24699.
    1. Jayaraman V, Feeney JM, Brautigam RT, Burns KJ, Jacobs LM. The use of simulation procedural training to improve self-efficacy, knowledge, and skill to perform cricothyroidotomy. Am Surg. 2014;80:377–81.
    1. Multak NET, Gabrielli A, Joseph L. Human patient simulation: a preliminary report of an innovative training tool for physician assistant education. Perspect Phys Assist Educ. 2002;13:2.
    1. Quigley P, Jeffrey P. Cricoid pressure: assessment of performance and effect of training in emergency department staff. Emerg Med Australas. 2007;19:218–22. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-6723.2007.00970.x.
    1. Kory PD, Eisen LA, Adachi M, Ribaudo VA, Rosenthal ME, Mayo PH. Initial airway management skills of senior residents: simulation training compared with traditional training. Chest. 2007;132:1927–31. doi: 10.1378/chest.07-1554.
    1. Youngquist ST, Henderson DP, Gausche-Hill M, Goodrich SM, Poore PD, Lewis RJ. Paramedic self-efficacy and skill retention in pediatric airway management. Acad Emerg Med. 2008;15:1295–303. doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00262.x.
    1. Gaba DM. The future vision of simulation in healthcare. Simul Healthc. 2007;2:126–35. doi: 10.1097/01.SIH.0000258411.38212.32.
    1. Wayne DB, McGaghie WC. Use of simulation-based medical education to improve patient care quality. Resuscitation. 2010;81:1455–6. doi: 10.1016/j.resuscitation.2010.07.012.
    1. McGaghie WC, Issenberg SB, Petrusa ER, Scalese RJ. A critical review of simulation-based medical education research 2003–2009. Med Educ. 2010;44:50–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03547.x.
    1. Kennedy CC, Cannon EK, Warner DO, Cook DA. Advanced airway management simulation training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:169–78. doi: 10.1097/CCM.0b013e31829a721f.
    1. Weller JM. Simulation in undergraduate medical education: bridging the gap between theory and practice. Med Educ. 2004;38:32–8. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2004.01739.x.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonnere