Intubation; Difficult or Failed
Conditions
Brief summary
The aim of the study is to investigate whether a voice activated cognitive aid can improve performance in a simulated emergency front-of-neck access scenario. This skill is ideally practiced on an annual basis by anaesthetists in training, with a variety of usually low-fidelity simulation used. The addition of the Alexa cognitive aid is a novel step with the aim of improving adherence to the recommended steps required to successfully complete the procedure. One arm of this study will be introduced to the Alexa checklist in advance of performing the procedure prior to crossover, whereas the second arm will not (subject to standard anaesthetic training).
Interventions
DEVICEUse of Alexa Visual Cognitive aid
The intervention is the use of of a cognitive aid to determine the efficacy of the aid in completing the steps correctly.
Sponsors
Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
CROSSOVER
Primary purpose
HEALTH_SERVICES_RESEARCH
Masking
TRIPLE (Subject, Investigator, Outcomes Assessor)
Masking description
Assessors marking the recorded performances will be blinded as to which group the candidate had been allocated to in the first instance. The statistical analysis team will also be blinded to the allocation sequence.
Intervention model description
Randomisation will be carried out using a randomization table made at www.randomizer.org to even/odd allocation numbers corresponding to 'Alexa first' vs 'No Alexa first' group with equal allocation between each arm. The randomisation sequence will be known only to the investigators issuing the initial grouping to the candidate, and allocations will be concealed from the video recording assessors and the statistical analysis team.
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
23 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* CT1 to Consultant level Anaesthetists, who have completed the Initial Assessment of Competencies (IAC)
Exclusion criteria
* Anaesthetists without the above criteria, refusal
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| The number of critical steps missed. | 6 months | What critical steps were missed |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| All critical steps completed | 6 months | What critical steps were completed |
| Hypoxic time (interval between SpO2 first <94% to recover >=94% - explicitly timed gradual decrease in saturations) | 6 months | What was the hypoxic time |
| A measure of participant workload (e.g. NASA-TLX) as perceived and completed by the participant after each arm. | 6 months | Workload time versus perceived time per participant |
| A measure of team working (e.g. ANTS score) for each individual procedure | 6 months | Actual measure per participant per procedure |
| A measure of participant's subjective experience (e.g. qualitative analysis of participant feedback on the device) | 6 months | Feedback from each participant about the device |
Countries
United Kingdom
Contacts
Primary Contactgill Arbane
Outcome results
None listed