Introduction This statement was planned on 11 March 2020 to provide clinical guidance and aid staff preparation for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic in Australia and New Zealand. It has been widely endorsed by relevant specialty colleges and societies. Main recommendations Generic guidelines exist for the intubation of different patient groups, as do resources to facilitate airway rescue and transition to the “can't intubate, can't oxygenate” scenario. They should be followed where they do not contradict our specific recommendations for the COVID‐19 patient group. Consideration should be given to using a checklist that has been specifically modified for the COVID‐19 patient group. Early intubation should be considered to prevent the additional risk to staff of emergency intubation and to avoid prolonged use of high flow nasal oxygen or non‐invasive ventilation. Significant institutional preparation is required to optimise staff and patient safety in preparing for the airway management of the COVID‐19 patient group. The principles for airway management should be the same for all patients with COVID‐19 (asymptomatic, mild or critically unwell). Safe, simple, familiar, reliable and robust practices should be adopted for all episodes of airway management for patients with COVID‐19. Changes in management as a result of this statement Airway clinicians in Australia and New Zealand should now already be involved in regular intensive training for the airway management of the COVID‐19 patient group. This training should focus on the principles of early intervention, meticulous planning, vigilant infection control, efficient processes, clear communication and standardised practice.

No abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic has led to the manufacturing of novel devices to protect clinicians from the risk of transmission, including the aerosol box for use during tracheal intubation. We evaluated the impact of two aerosol boxes (an early-generation box and a latest-generation box) on intubations in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019 with an in-situ simulation crossover study. The simulated process complied with the Safe Airway Society coronavirus disease 2019 airway management guidelines. The primary outcome was intubation time; secondary outcomes included first-pass success and breaches to personal protective equipment. All intubations were performed by specialist (consultant) anaesthetists and video recorded. Twelve anaesthetists performed 36 intubations. Intubation time with no aerosol box was significantly shorter than with the early-generation box (median (IQR [range]) 42.9 (32.9-46.9 [30.9-57.6])s vs. 82.1 (45.1-98.3 [30.8-180.0])s p = 0.002) and the latest-generation box (52.4 (43.1-70.3 [35.7-169.2])s, p = 0.008). No intubations without a box took more than 1 min, whereas 14 (58%) intubations with a box took over 1 min and 4 (17%) took over 2 min (including one failure). Without an aerosol box, all anaesthetists obtained first-pass success. With the early-generation and latest-generation boxes, 9 (75%) and 10 (83%) participants obtained first-pass success, respectively.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

This article describes an operational framework for implementing translational simulation in everyday practice. The framework, based on an input-process-output model, is developed from a critical review of the existing translational simulation literature and the collective experience of the authors’ affiliated translational simulation services. The article describes how translational simulation may be used to explore work environments and/or people in them, improve quality through targeted interventions focused on clinical performance/patient outcomes, and be used to design and test planned infrastructure or interventions. Representative case vignettes are used to show how the framework can be applied to real world healthcare problems, including clinical space testing, process development, and culture. Finally, future directions for translational simulation are discussed. As such, the article provides a road map for practitioners who seek to address health service outcomes using translational simulation.

This Viewpoint discusses considerations that might lead physicians to change their practice based on RCTs reporting non–statistically significant differences in primary outcomes, including trial methodology, totality of evidence, cost, invasiveness, and labor-intensiveness of the interventions being compared.