An international survey of airway management education in 61 countries

• Published in: British journal of anaesthesia : BJA Vol. 125; no. 1; pp. e54 - e60
• Main Authors: Armstrong, Laura, Harding, Fleur, Critchley, Julia, McNarry, Alistair F., Myatra, Sheila N., Cooper, Richard, Baker, Paul A.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.07.2020
• Subjects: airway management; competence assessment; education; guidelines; health resources; low-income countries; training; education; health resources; airway management; guidelines; low-income countries; training; competence assessment
• ISSN: 0007-0912; 1471-6771
• DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.04.051

Deficiencies in airway management skills and judgement contribute to poor outcomes. Airway management practice guidelines emphasise the importance of education. Little is known about the global uptake of guidelines, availability of equipment, provision of training, assessment of skills, and confidence with procedures. We devised a survey to examine these issues. Initially, 24 127 anaesthetists were questioned in New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, UK, India, and Germany, representing the home countries of the members of the Worldwide Airway Meeting (2015) Education Group; however, the survey could be forwarded to others. The survey was open for a maximum of 90 days. We received 4948 fully or partially completed surveys from 61 countries: 33 high-income and 28 middle- or low-income countries. Most respondents were consultants (77.2%, n=4948), and the remainder trainees, with a male/female ratio of 1.8:1 (3105 males, n=4866). Of those responding, 1358 (76.6%, n=1798) were members of an airway interest group. Most respondents (91.3% of 2910) agreed with assessment of airway skills, fewer (2237; 59.7%, n=3750) reported requiring airway training for completion of training, and only 810 (33.6%, n=2408) reported it as a requirement for continuing medical education. Reported confidence was lowest for awake tracheal intubation, front-of-neck access, and retrograde intubation. Global training is variable in its delivery and necessity. Confidence is limited in potentially life-saving techniques. The desire for assessment appears universal and may improve standards, but in resource- or time-limited environments this will be challenging.