JOURNAL HOME CME HOME THIS MONTH PAST ISSUES ETOC COLLECTIONS AUTHORS REVIEWERS EDITORIAL BOARD FEEDBACK RSS HELP
		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Martin, K. M. Articles by Marsland, C. P. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Martin, K. M. Articles by Marsland, C. P. Related Collections Economics and Health Care Research Airway Equipment

---

GENERAL ARTICLES

Effective Nonanatomical Endoscopy Training Produces Clinical Airway Endoscopy Proficiency

Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Management, Wellington Hospital, Wellington, New Zealand

Address correspondence and reprint requests to C. P. Marsland, FRCPC, FANZCA, Department of Anesthesia, Wellington Hospital, Pvt Bag 7902, Wellington South, New Zealand. Address e-mail to colin.marsland{at}paradise.net.nz

We studied the effectiveness of two nonanatomical endoscopic dexterity training models: "Choose the Hole" and Dexter^TM. Effectiveness was assessed in terms of time spent training, subjective rating, performance on an anatomical manikin, and clinical performance on fellow participants who acted as awake subjects. Forty-three anesthesia specialists, trainees, and technicians volunteered. Performances were videotaped, timed, and scored with a Global Rating Scale (GRS) from 1 (very poor) to 5 (clearly superior). The Dexter^TM group spent more time training than the Choose the Hole group (median time [range], 152 min [70–510 min] versus 75 min [17–281 min]; P < 0.01). Subjective ratings were better in the Dexter^TM group. In clinical bronchoscopy, the Dexter^TM group was faster (30.7 s [17.1–43.5 s] versus 36.6 s [22.8–105.1 s]; P = 0.02) and had higher GRS scores (mean [SD]: 3.0 [0.4] versus 2.6 [0.6]; P = 0.04), indicating superior performance. Clinical and manikin performance (GRS scores) were significantly correlated ( = 0.62; P = 0.0001). Benchmark levels of clinical bronchoscopic performance can be anticipated from bench model performance without a clinical learning curve. Dexter^TM is a more effective model for learning endoscopic dexterity than the Choose the Hole model. Airway topicalization with lidocaine in a dose range consistent with published series (490–980 mg or 7.14–14.77 mg/kg) resulted in a frequent incidence of side effects. No major adverse events occurred.

IMPLICATIONS: Endoscopic skills can be developed and measured on models with the expectation that good model performance will result in good clinical performance. Benchmark levels of endoscopic dexterity can be achieved clinically without a novice learning curve. Dexter^TM is a more effective model than "Choose the Hole" for learning endoscopic dexterity. Caution is warranted in the use of topical lidocaine in amounts approaching the upper limits of published dose ranges.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				N. M. Woodall, R. J. Harwood, and G. L. Barker Complications of awake fibreoptic intubation without sedation in 200 healthy anaesthetists attending a training course Br. J. Anaesth., June 1, 2008; 100(6): 850 - 855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. P. Eason Simulation Devices in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia Seminars in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, December 1, 2005; 9(4): 309 - 323. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. A. Williams, G. L. Barker, R. J. Harwood, and N. M. Woodall Combined nebulization and spray-as-you-go topical local anaesthesia of the airway Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2005; 95(4): 549 - 553. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				N. M. Woodall, R. J. Harwood, and G. L. Barker Lidocaine Toxicity in Volunteer Subjects Undergoing Awake Fiberoptic Intubation Anesth. Analg., August 1, 2005; 101(2): 607 - 607. [Full Text] [PDF]

Anesthesia & Analgesia® is published for the International Anesthesia Research Society® by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins with the assistance of Stanford University Libraries' HighWire Press®. Copyright 2006 by the International Anesthesia Research Society. Online ISSN: 1526-7598   Print ISSN: 0003-2999