The difficult airway trolley in pediatric anesthesia: an international survey of experience and training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The pediatric difficult airway can be unexpected, leading to significant morbidity and mortality. Standardized emergency airway equipment should be available on a regularly checked difficult airway trolley (DAT). We conducted a survey to investigate pediatric anesthetists' knowledge, experience, and confidence with the DAT. METHODS: Members of the Association of Paediatric Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (APAGBI), European Society for Paediatric Anaesthesiology (ESPA) and their national societies, Canadian Pediatric Anesthesia Society (CPAS), and Society for Paediatric Anaesthesia in New Zealand and Australia (SPANZA) were invited to complete a survey between January and April 2011. RESULTS: Six hundred and ninety-three anesthetists replied to the questionnaire. Six hundred and thirty-three (92%) stated they have a DAT in their theater suite, with 587 (98%) knowing its location. Three hundred and eight-seven (56%) anesthetists received formal DAT training. The lowest training levels were observed in Australia and the UK; 42% and 59%, respectively. Those receiving training were more likely to be confident/very confident in knowing the DAT contents (r = -0.321, P = 0.01). Three hundred and fifty-five (59%) anesthetists had used the DAT in the last 6 months, 82 (14%) in the last 6-12 months, 91 (15%) >1 year ago, and 72 (12%) had never used it. Frequency of use correlated moderately with higher confidence levels (r = -0.398, P = 0.01). One hundred and eight-three (31%) reported having experienced problems with DAT equipment (missing 20%, faulty 4%, unfamiliarity 7%). DISCUSSION: Training and recent use of the DAT increases anesthetists' confidence, but is not a universal practice. A significant number of anesthetists reported problems with the DAT, raising issues of equipment maintenance and quality control.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".