Unanticipated Difficult Airway in Obstetric Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to develop a consensus-based algorithm for the management of the unanticipated difficult airway in obstetrics, and to use this algorithm for the assessment of anesthesia residents' performance during high-fidelity simulation. METHODS: An algorithm for unanticipated difficult airway in obstetrics, outlining the management of six generic clinical situations of "can and cannot ventilate" possibilities in three clinical contexts: elective cesarean section, emergency cesarean section for fetal distress, and emergency cesarean section for maternal distress, was used to create a critical skills checklist. The authors used four of these scenarios for high-fidelity simulation for residents. Their critical and crisis resource management skills were assessed independently by three raters using their checklist and the Ottawa Global rating scale. RESULTS: Sixteen residents participated. The checklist scores ranged from 64-80% and improved from scenario 1 to 4. Overall Global rating scale scores were marginal and not significantly different between scenarios. The intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.69 (95% CI: 0.58, 0.78) represents a good interrater reliability for the checklist. Multiple critical errors were identified, the most common being not calling for help or a difficult airway cart. CONCLUSIONS: Aside from identifying common critical errors, the authors noted that the residents' performance was poorest in two of our scenarios: "fetal distress and cannot intubate, cannot ventilate" and "maternal distress and cannot intubate, but can ventilate." More teaching emphasis may be warranted to avoid commonly identified critical errors and to improve overall management. Our study also suggests a potential for experiential learning with successive simulations.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".