Instruction in awake fibreoptic intubation using the trainees as subjects
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
We report our experience of 12 training courses using course delegates as subjects for training in awake intubation [1]. Delegates attended either as participants or observers. Airway local anaesthesia, fibreoptic endoscopy and tracheal intubation were performed on participants by other course members. Adverse events during airway anaesthesia and endoscopy were recorded. Additional data were collected from application forms. All delegates completed an anonymous questionnaire: participants were asked to grade sensations such as anxiety, pain, coughing and gagging on a 5-point scale. Eighty-nine delegates presented for training; 47 had previously performed 10 or fewer fibreoptic intubations and eight had performed none before. Of the 89 delegates, 21 were observers. Endoscopy of the airway was performed to the level of the trachea in all 68 participants; nasotracheal intubation was completed in 59. Gagging was rated as slightly uncomfortable by 36 (53%) of the 68 participants; eight (12%) found this uncomfortable and one rated this as very uncomfortable. Twenty-three (34%) reported no discomfort associated with gagging during endoscopy or intubation. Thirty-three subjects (48%) found the procedure slightly painful and 36 (53%) reported anxiety associated with the procedure. No delegates rated the sensation of endoscopy or intubation as distressing. Overall, the procedure was rated as acceptable by 57 (84%) subjects and enjoyable by 11 (16%). Severe paraesthesia of the hands developed in one individual. Minor nasal bleeding occurred in two cases, and did not interfere with endoscopy. One delegate felt faint following endoscopy; this settled with rest and intravenous fluid. One delegate vomited an undigested meal following endoscopy despite not having eaten for 8 h. Six hours after endoscopy, one delegate developed a fever with rigors; he was treated with antibiotics and suffered no long term effects. The use of course delegates as subjects for training in airway endoscopy was acceptable to this self-selected group of anaesthetists when conducted under closely controlled conditions.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».