The effects of laryngeal mask airway passage simulation training on the acquisition of undergraduate clinical skills: a randomised controlled trial

Background\ud Effective use of the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) requires learning proper insertion technique in normal patients undergoing routine surgical procedures. However, there is a move towards simulation training for learning practical clinical skills, such as LMA placement. The evidence linking different amounts of mannequin simulation training to the undergraduate clinical skill of LMA placement in real patients is limited. The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness in vivo of two LMA placement simulation courses of different durations. \ud \ud Methods\ud Medical students (n = 126) enrolled in a randomised controlled trial. Seventy-eight of these students completed the trial. The control group (n = 38) received brief mannequin training while the intervention group (n = 40) received additional more intensive mannequin training as part of which they repeated LMA insertion until they were proficient. The anaesthetists supervising LMA placements in real patients rated the participants' performance on assessment forms. Participants completed a self-assessment questionnaire. \ud \ud Results\ud Additional mannequin training was not associated with improved performance (37% of intervention participants received an overall placement rating of > 3/5 on their first patient compared to 48% of the control group, $X^2$ = 0.81, p = 0.37). The agreement between the participants and their instructors in terms of LMA placement success rates was poor to fair. Participants reported that mannequins were poor at mimicking reality. \ud \ud Conclusions\ud The results suggest that the value of extended mannequin simulation training in the case of LMA placement is limited. Educators considering simulation for the training of practical skills should reflect on the extent to which the in vitro simulation mimics the skill required and the degree of difficulty of the procedure. \ud \u

Adult intraosseous access: A comparison of devices

Background: Evidence to support device choice in intraosseous access is lacking in UK paramedic practice. Being unable to access the sternum with devices may result in under-treatment because of the inability to gain timely vascular access. This represents a shortcoming in current practice and a need for further research. Method: A literature review was conducted to find suitable studies and these were critically appraised. The data were synthesised to draw conclusions that could either influence practice or inform research. Study results were analysed in order to examine the following outcomes for devices most successful in terms of insertion rates; insertion times; ease of use; and flow rates. Cost-efficacy was also taken into consideration. Results: Forty-eight relevant articles were identified in the search and 18 were analysed. Of the 18 articles, 7 were randomised controlled trials and 11 were observational studies. Results varied widely with differences in reporting making the synthesis of data problematic. However, there was sufficient evidence to conclude that semiautomatic devices are superior to manual ones. Conclusion: Weaknesses in the evidence and inconsistencies between studies limited the conclusions that could be drawn. There is a strong mandate here for further research