Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Add like
Add dislike
Add to saved papers

A survey of anaesthetic practice in predicting difficult intubation in UK and Europe.

CONTEXT: Unexpected difficulty in tracheal intubation is an intermittent and often terrifying problem for all practising anaesthetists. There are many preoperative assessment tests to predict a difficult laryngeal view or a difficult intubation, but we found no published evidence of how frequently these predictive tests are used or how useful they are perceived to be by anaesthetists.

OBJECTIVE: We decided to ask UK and non-UK anaesthetists attending the Annual Scientific Meeting of the European Society of Anaesthesiology about their practice in predicting difficult intubation.

DESIGN: The study was conceived as a survey.

SETTING: The airway tests were compiled into a questionnaire, hand distributed among anaesthetists at Euroanaesthesia - the European group (after excluding UK attendees) - and posted to randomly selected anaesthetists in the UK - the UK group.

PARTICIPANTS: Overall, 888 of 1230 (72%) questionnaires were completed. The response rate from the UK group of anaesthetists was 69% (481 of 700) and from the European group was 77% (407 of 530).

RESULTS: On a scale 1 (never) to 5 (always), the mean score for frequency of use was similar for both groups of anaesthetists and ranged from about 4 for mouth opening to about 1 for Nodding Donkey. The mean score for usefulness (1 = useless, 5 = extremely useful) ranged from about 3.7 to 2 for the same two tests. The UK group found most tests slightly less useful than did the European group. With regard to the frequency of assessing the airway, 9% of the European group, but 16% of the UK group, failed always (score 5) or regularly (score 4) to assess the airway before general anaesthesia. Furthermore, 21 and 36% of the UK and European groups, respectively, failed to do so before regional anaesthesia.

CONCLUSION: These results are a cause for concern with regard to both airway management training and patient safety.

Full text links

We have located links that may give you full text access.
Can't access the paper?
Try logging in through your university/institutional subscription. For a smoother one-click institutional access experience, please use our mobile app.

Related Resources

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

Mobile app image

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app

All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.

By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.

Your Privacy Choices Toggle icon

You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now

Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university

For the best experience, use the Read mobile app