Do you see what I see? A randomised pilot study to evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of simulation-based...

Direct laryngoscopy (DL) and airway intubation are critical for neonatal resuscitation. A challenge in teaching DL is that the instructor cannot assess the learners' airway view. Videolaryngoscopy (VL), which allows display of a patient's airway on a monitor, enables the instructor to view the airway during the procedure. This pilot study compared deliberate practice using either VL with instruction (I-VL) or traditional DL. We hypothesised that I-VL would improve the efficiency and effectiveness of neonatal intubation (NI) training.

Participants (students, paediatric interns and neonatal fellows) were randomised to I-VL or DL. Baseline technical skills were assessed using a skills checklist and global skills assessment. Following educational sessions, deliberate practice was performed on mannequins using the Storz C-MAC. With I-VL, the instructor could guide training using a real-time airway monitor view. With DL, feedback was based solely on technique or direct visual confirmation, but the instructor and learner views were not concurrent. During summative assessment, procedural skills checklists were used to evaluate intubation ability on a neonatal airway trainer. The duration of attempts was recorded, and recorded airway views were blindly reviewed for airway grade. 'Effectiveness' reflected achievement of the minimum passing score (MPS). 'Efficiency' was the duration of training for learners achieving the MPS.

58 learners were randomised. Baseline demographics were similar. All participants had a significant improvement in knowledge, skills and comfort/confidence following training. There were no significant differences between randomised groups in efficiency or effectiveness, but trends towards improvement in each were noted. Fellows were more likely to achieve 'competency' postinstruction compared to non-fellows (p<0.001).

This educational intervention to teach NI increased the learner's knowledge, technical skills and confidence in procedural performance in both groups. I-VL did not improve training effectiveness. The small sample size and participant diversity may have limited findings, and future work is indicated.