• E Rosenthal and H Owen.
• Flinders Clinical Skills and Simulation Unit, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia.
• Anaesth Intensive Care. 2004 Feb 1;32(1):87-92.

AbstractThis study assessed small simulators sold for teaching basic airway management. The assessment used criteria based on guidelines produced by the Australian Resuscitation Council and our experience teaching health professional trainees. Criteria included how well the simulators demonstrated manoeuvres to open the airway, mouth-to-mouth and mask-to-mouth expired air resuscitation and artificial ventilation using a bag and mask. Simulators with permanently open airways (as is the case with some intubation manikins) were not tested. Each simulator was also assessed for realism in relation to look and feel, hygiene and sturdiness of construction. Clinical staff and medical students who teach basic airway management undertook a standardized assessment of nine simulators. There were significant differences between simulators that could impact on learning. Generally, models with hard surfaces tended to be less realistic in both look and feel compared to those with flexible "skin". Realism of lung inflation and its relationship to airway opening manoeuvres varied greatly between simulators. The Little Anne small simulator functioned most realistically in our tests.

9 keywords...

hide…