ArticleDer Anaesthesist2019
[Transfer of a cockpit strategy to anesthesiology : Clinical example: introduction of canned decisions to solve cannot intubate cannot oxygenate situations].
Article in Der Anaesthesist, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Implementation and adoption of SOAP-M and SBAR at a German anesthesiology department - a single-center survey study.BMC anesthesiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSafety strategies in civil aviation are well-established. The authors present a possible structure for induction of anesthesia, which includes elements of the so-called cockpit strategy. The objective is to reduce anesthesia-related mortality caused by the unexpected difficult airway through early detection and solution of cannot intubate cannot oxygenate (CICO) situations.
methodsAfter approval by the responsible ethics committee, a prospective pilot study was conducted to analyze the process quality of uncomplicated induction of anesthesia on a simulator using audiovisual recording. An evaluation list with 44 items was created, which met the following requirements: items were dichotomous, accessible to an audiovisual evaluation and according to current scientific consensus should be considered during induction of anesthesia. Standard induction of anesthesia was supplemented by several crew resource management elements (cockpit strategy). Two canned decisions (CD, CD 1: end tidal CO
resultsThe cockpit strategy significantly improved the process quality during the simulated induction of anesthesia (78% vs. 36% items fulfilled), while the duration of induction was reduced by 36%. In the subsequent 6‑year study period, 7 CICO situations with emergency coniotomy occurred. All teams performed in accordance with the algorithm and with respect to the CDs. No patient suffered from hypoxia or any other damage.
conclusionThe transfer and implementation of a cockpit strategy in anesthesiology for improvement of patient safety is possible. The acceptance of the aviation safety strategy in medicine is a necessary prerequisite. A profound training in technical and non-technical skills and regular team training to solve CICO situations must be an integral part of advanced training in anesthesiology.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30446807What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.