ArticleThe Laryngoscope2025
Airway Emergency Drill: An In Situ Simulation to Increase Staff Preparedness for Airway Bleeding.
Article in The Laryngoscope, 2025. 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.
- Airway Emergency Drill: An In Situ Simulation to Increase Staff Preparedness for Airway Bleeding.The Laryngoscope · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveIn situ simulation offers a valuable opportunity for teams to refine emergency response skills within their actual clinical environment. To evaluate the efficacy and utility of this model, we implemented an in situ emergency airway drill simulation on the otolaryngology inpatient floor at a quaternary care hospital and assessed participant-reported outcomes.
methodsTwelve in situ airway emergency simulations were conducted over 3 years, involving 63 Airway Rapid Response Team (ARRT) otolaryngologists, anesthesiologists, respiratory therapists, surgical intensivists, nurses, and pharmacists. Emergency scenarios simulated real-world airway crises. Surveys assessed provider confidence, anxiety reduction, subjective value of the experience, and perceived impact on patient safety. Confidence ratings were collected pre- and post-simulation in a subset of 34 participants and analyzed via paired t-test. Qualitative feedback from debriefing sessions was thematically assessed.
resultsPost-simulation surveys demonstrated 72% of participants reported increased confidence in airway emergencies, and 86% reported reduced anxiety compared to before the simulation. It was also found that 93% of participants valued the experience, and 100% agreed that the in situ drill will positively impact patient safety. Confidence increased significantly among participants who completed pre- and post-simulation assessments (5.8-7.6 on a 10-point scale; p < 0.0001). Qualitative themes highlighted increased familiarity with airway equipment and improved interdisciplinary communication, with 56% of participants independently citing these as main takeaways.
conclusionIn situ airway emergency drills are an effective tool for training multidisciplinary teams, as they improve provider confidence, familiarity with equipment, and interprofessional collaboration in preparation for high-stakes airway emergencies. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: N/A.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.