Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Learning to manage tracheostomy-related emergencies: a pilot study comparing three teaching strategies for junior doctors in intensive care.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundIn intensive care settings, doctors face low-frequency and high-stakes events such as tracheostomy-related emergencies. Junior doctors must learn to manage these situations to ensure patient safety, yet they often lack clinical exposure to such critical events. Clinical teachers should develop methods that provide enough learning opportunities while remaining feasible in terms of workload. This study compared three strategies for teaching junior doctors to manage tracheostomy-related emergencies in intensive care unit (ICU).
methodIn this pilot study, conducted in the ICU of Lausanne University Hospital, twenty-four junior doctors were randomized into three groups: Group A: Access to a printed algorithm; Group B: E-learning, including the algorithm with access to a toolbox; Group C: Flipped classroom course, including a short low-fidelity simulation. Performance was assessed through pre- and post-intervention sessions consisting of three tracheostomy-related simulation scenarios. A modified Delphi method was used to develop a performance assessment tool consisting of an evaluation scale for each scenario. Knowledge was also assessed before and after the intervention through a multiple-choice questionnaire. The primary outcome was the Global Performance Score (GPS), calculated for each teaching method by summing the performance scale scores across the three simulation scenarios as the total score across all scenarios, after the intervention.
resultsThe GPS significantly improved after the intervention in the three groups (Group A: M = 141, SD = 22 vs. M = 116, SD = 16.7 p = 0.008; Group B: M = 157, SD = 14 vs. M = 110.1, SD = 17.3 p = 0.008; Group C: M = 171.9, SD = 20.1 vs. M = 99.4, SD = 16 p = 0.008). There was a trend for a higher post-intervention GPS in Group B as compared to Group A (p = 0.105), and in Group C as compared to Group B (p = 0.279). By contrast, post-intervention GPS was significantly higher in Group C as compared to Group A (p = 0.021).
conclusionThe flipped classroom strategy, combined with a brief simulation, yielded the highest post-intervention score. This strategy appears promising for junior doctors learning to manage low-frequency critical events, such as tracheostomy-related emergencies. Further research should explore its feasibility at larger scale, confirm the results in a larger population of learners with adequately powered studies and the applicability of such a teaching approach to other critical events.
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.