Aslı Horasan Filizer, Onat Bermede, Volkan Baytaş, Zekeriyya Alanoğlu

Yüz Yüze Eğitim ile Video Aracılı Uzaktan Eğitimin Videolaringoskopa Adaptasyon Sürecine Etkisi

Amaç: Videolaringoskopların zor entübasyonda kullanışlı oldukları kabul edilmiş ve son kılavuzlarda yerini almıştır. Ancak videolaringoskopi eğitimi yetersiz ve öğrenme eğrisi de yavaştır. Bu nedenle yüz yüze eğitime alternatif olarak, video aracılı uzaktan eğitimin videolaringoskopa adaptasyon sürecine etkisinin değerlendirilmesi amaçlandı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Beşinci - 6. sınıf tıp fakültesi öğrencileri ile videolaringoskopi tecrübesi olmayan, 1 yıldan küçük araştırma görevlileri video aracılı uzaktan eğitim (Grup 1) ve yüz yüze eğitim (Grup 2) almak üzere iki gruba ayrıldı. Birer hafta aralıklı tekrarlayan üç uygulama ile uygulayıcıların maket üzerinde, laringoskop yerleştirme ve larinks görüntüleme süreleri, Cormack Lehane (CML) skoru, tüp yerleştirme ve toplam entübasyon süreleri ile entübasyon performansları değerlendirildi. Bulgular: Grup 1’de 18 (10 kadın, 8 erkek), ve Grup 2’de 17 (12 kadın, 5 erkek) olmak üzere 35 uygulayıcı dahil edildi. Tüp yerleştirme ve toplam entübasyon süresi, her iki grupta, grup içi değerlendirmelerde anlamlı olarak kısalırken [32 (15,25-87) vs 16 (12,75-20,75), p=0,006; 32 (19,5-44,5) vs 14 (10-17,5), p=0,006]; gruplar arasında anlamlı fark saptanmadı. CML skoru birinci uygulamada Grup 1’de %84 oranında iken, bu oran Grup 2’de %88 idi. Üçüncü uygulamada ise Grup 1’de %95, Grup 2’de %100 oranında CML skoru 1 olarak saptandı (p>0,05). Sonuç: Videolaringoskoplar zor havayolu yönetiminin yanı sıra havayolu, laringoskopi, entübasyon eğitimleri için de kullanılabilir. Videolaringoskop kullanım eğitimi verecek kişi sayısının az olmasının yarattığı sorun video eğitimleri ile aşılıp, daha çok kişiye kolaylıkla erişilebilir. Videolaringoskopi için video aracılı uzaktan eğitim, yüz yüze eğitimlere iyi bir alternatiftir. Anahtar Kelimeler: Videolaringoskopi, Video Aracılı Eğitim, Uzaktan Eğitim

The Effect of Face-to-face Education and Video-mediated Distance Education on the Adaptation Process to the Videolaryngoscope

Objectives: Videolaryngoscopes are considered useful in difficult intubation and have been included in recent guidelines. However, videolaryngoscopy training is inadequate and the learning curve is slow. Therefore, as an alternative to face-to-face education, it was aimed to evaluate the effect of video-mediated distance education on the adaptation process to the videolaryngoscope. Materials and Methods: Fifth - 6th grade medical faculty students and residents with less than 1 year experience without videolaryngoscopy practice were divided into two groups as video-mediated distance education (Group 1) and face-to-face education (Group 2) groups. Laryngoscope placement and larynx visualization times, Cormack Lehane (CML) score, tube placement and total intubation times, and intubation performances of the practitioners were evaluated on the mannequin with three applications repeated at intervals of one week. Results: Thirty-five practitioners were included, 18 (10 female, 8 male) in Group 1 and 17 (12 female, 5 male) in Group 2. While tube placement and total intubation time were significantly shortened in intragroup evaluations in both groups [32 (15.25-87) vs 16 (12.75-20.75), p=0.006; 3 (19.5-44.5) vs 14 (10-17.5), p=0.006]; there was no significant difference between the groups. While the CML score was 84% in Group 1 in the first application, this rate was 88% in Group 2. In the third application, the CML score was found to be 1 at a rate of 95% in Group 1 and 100% in Group 2 (p>0.05). Conclusion: Videolaryngoscopes can be used for airway, laryngoscopy, intubation training as well as difficult airway management. The problem caused by the low number of people who will provide videolaryngoscope usage training can be overcome with video trainings and more people can be easily accessed. Video-mediated distance learning for videolaryngoscopy is a good alternative to face-to-face training.

PDF

___

1. Caplan RA, Posner KL, Ward RJ, et al. Adverse respiratory events in anesthesia: a closed claims analysis. Anesthesiology. 1990;72:828-833.
2. Crosby ET, Cooper RM, Douglas MJ, et al. The unanticipated difficult airway with recommendations for management. Can J Anaesth. 1998;45:757-776.
3. Apfelbaum JL, Hagberg CA, Caplan RA, et al. Practice guidelines for management of the difficult airway: an updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists Task Force on Management of the Difficult Airway. Anesthesiology. 2013;118:251-270.
4. Frerk C, Mitchell VS, McNarry AF, et al. Difficult Airway Society 2015 guidelines for management of unanticipated difficult intubation in adults. Br J Anaesth. 2015;115: 827-848.
5. Cavus E, Bein B, Dörges V. [Airwaymanagement: video-assisted airway management]. Anasthesiol Intensivmed Notfallmed Schmerzther. 2011;46:588-596.
6. Andersen LH, Rovsing L, Olsen KS. GlideScope videolaryngoscope vs. Macintosh direct laryngoscope for intubation of morbidly obese patients: a randomized trial. Acta Anesthesiol Scand. 2011;55:1090-1097.
7. Howard-Quijano KJ, Huang YM, Matevosian R, et al. Video-assisted instruction improves the success rate for tracheal intubation by novices. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:568-572.
8. Griesdale DE, Liu D, McKinney J, et al. Glidescope® video-laryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for endotracheal intubation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth. 2012;59:41-52.
9. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, et al. G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175-191.
10. Ng I, Hill AL, Williams DL, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing the McGrath videolaryngoscope with the C-MAC videolaryngoscope in intubating adult patients with potential difficult airways. Br J Anaesth. 2012;109:439-443.
11. Cavus E, Neumann T, Doerges V, et al. First clinical evaluation of the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope during routine and difficult intubation. Anesth Analg. 2011;112:382-385.
12. Van Zundert A, Maassen R, Lee R, et al. A Macintosh laryngoscope blade for videolaryngoscopy reduces stylet use in patients with normal airways. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:825-831.
13. Jain D, Dhankar M, Wig J, et al. Comparison of the conventional CMAC and the D-blade CMAC with the direct laryngoscopes in simulated cervical spine injury-a manikin study. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2014;64:269-274.
14. Serocki G, Neumann T, Scharf E, et al. Indirect videolaryngoscopy with C-MAC D-Blade and GlideScope: a randomized, controlled comparison in patients with suspected difficult airways. Minerva Anestesiol. 2013;79:121- 129.
15. Gaszynski T. Clinical experience with the C-Mac videolaryngoscope in morbidly obese patients. Anaesthesiol Intensive Ther. 2014;46:14-16.
16. Kilicaslan A, Topal A, Tavlan A, et al. Effectiveness of the C-MAC video laryngoscope in the management of unexpected failed intubations. Braz J Anesthesiol. 2014;64:62-65.
17. Cavus E, Callies A, Doerges V, et al. The C-MAC videolaryngoscope for prehospital emergency intubation: a prospective, multicentre, observational study. Emerg Med J. 2011;28:650-653.
18. Cavus E, Kieckhaefer J, Doerges V, et al. The C-MAC videolaryngoscope: first experiences with a new device for videolaryngoscopy-guided intubation. Anesth Analg. 2010;110:473-477.
19. Sun DA, Warriner CB, Parsons DG, et al. The Glidescope Video Laryngoscope: randomized clinical trial in 200 patients. Br J Anaesth. 2005;94:381-384.
20. Niforopoulou P, Pantazopoulos I, Demestiha T, et al. Video-laryngoscopes in the adult airway management: a topical review of the literature. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2010;54:1050-1061.
21. Burkle CM, Walsh MT, Harrison BA, et al. Airway management after failure to intubate by direct laryngoscopy: outcomes in a large teaching hospital. Can J Anaesth. 2005;52:634-640.
22. Fischer S, Stewart TE, Mehta S, et al. Handheld computing in medicine. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2003;10:139-149.
23. Rothman BS, Gupta RK, McEvoy MD. Mobile Technology in the Perioperative Arena: Rapid Evolution and Future Disruption. Anesth Analg. 2017;124:807- 818.
24. Franko OI, Tirrell TF. Smartphone app use among medical providers in ACGME training programs. J Med Syst. 2012;36:3135-3139.
25. Kho A, Henderson LE, Dressler DD et al. Use of handheld computers in medical education. A systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21:531- 537.
26. Chu LF, Erlendson MJ, Sun JS et al. Information technology and its role in anaesthesia training and continuing medical education. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2012;26:33-53.
27. Zoghbi V, Caskey RC, Dumon KR et al. “How To” Videos Improve Residents Performance of Essential Perioperative Electronic Medical Records and Clinical Tasks. J Surg Educ. 2018;75:489-496.
28. Choi HJ, Lee CC, Lim TH, et al. Effectiveness of mouth-to-mouth ventilation after video self-instruction training in laypersons. Am J Emerg Med. 2010;28:654-657.
29. Nielsen AM, Henriksen MJ, Isbye DL, et al. Acquisition and retention of basic life support skills in an untrained population using a personal resuscitation manikin and video self-instruction (VSI). Resuscitation. 2010;81:1156-1160.
30. Roppolo LP, Pepe PE, Campbell L, et al. Prospective, randomized trial of the effectiveness and retention of 30-min layperson training for cardiopulmonary resuscitation and automated external defibrillators: The American Airlines Study. Resuscitation. 2007;74:276-285.
31. Lynch B, Einspruch EL, Nichol G, et al. Effectiveness of a 30-min CPR self- instruction program for lay responders: a controlled randomized study. Resuscitation. 2005;67:31-43.