CCEI-1357-2012

Background and Goal of Study: Clinical simulation is a useful learning tool in medical teaching. Multiple studies have proven its superiority over classical learning methods. Research on simulation of airway management has focused on endotracheal intubation training, while research on ventilation via facemask is scant. We aimed to compare clinical simulation and classical learning regarding the acquirement of basic skills for airway management by medical undergraduate students. 

Materials and Methods: A total of 102 last year medical students were randomized to clinical simulation or classical learning (51 per group). Students in the clinical simulation group received a 3-hour long training on airway management on the first day of their 28-day anesthesia rotation; while classical learning students only received training in the clinical setting, without previous practice on simulators. On the last day of rotation, they were evaluated based on a validated instrument of scores. Primary outcome was overall airway management score. Secondary outcomes were the rate of success of intubation and the incidence of complications. 

Results and Discussion: Students in the clinical simulation group obtained a significant higher score than those assigned to classical learning in ventilation but not in endotracheal intubation. Incidence of complications such as esophageal intubation and oral trauma were similar for both groups. Successful intubation rates were similar for both groups (p=0.091)

Conclusion: The proposed clinical simulation demonstrated to be educationally effective for ventilation via facemask but not effective for endotracheal intubation training in patients without predictors of difficult airway. Endotracheal intubation skills acquisition might be a complex process that requires longer training.

06 / A comparison of clinical simulation and classical learning for airway management in medical undergraduate students: a randomized controlled trial