Emergency Airway Management: A Systematic Review on the Effectiveness of Cognitive Aids in Improving Outcomes and Provider Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background/Objectives: Emergency airway management is a critical skill for healthcare professionals, particularly in life-threatening situations like “cannot intubate, cannot oxygenate” (CICO) scenarios. Errors and delays in airway management can lead to adverse outcomes, including hypoxia and death. Cognitive aids, such as checklists and algorithms, have been proposed as tools to improve decision-making, procedural competency, and non-technical skills in these high-stakes environments. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of cognitive aids in enhancing emergency airway management skills among health professionals and trainees. Methods: A systematic search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov was conducted from February to March 2024. Studies examining the use of cognitive aids, such as the Vortex method, the ASA difficult airway algorithm, and visual airway aids, in emergency airway scenarios were included. Outcomes assessed included decision-making speed, procedural success rates, and non-technical skills. Data were extracted using standardized protocols, and the quality of included studies was appraised. Results: Five studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing randomized controlled trials, controlled studies, and mixed-methods research. Cognitive aids improved decision-making times (reduced by 44.6 s), increased procedural success rates, and enhanced non-technical skills such as teamwork and crisis management. Participants reported reduced anxiety and improved confidence levels (self-efficacy scores increased by 1.9 points). The Vortex method and visual cognitive aids demonstrated particular effectiveness in simulated scenarios. Conclusions: Cognitive aids significantly enhance emergency airway management skills, improving performance, reducing errors, and increasing provider confidence. Integrating cognitive aids into training programs has the potential to improve patient safety and outcomes. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings and optimize cognitive aid design and implementation.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.044 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".