Teaching Endotracheal Intubation Using Animals and Cadavers

Abstract

Introduction:The effectiveness of using supplemental teaching sessions with animals and cadavers on the acquisition of technical skills of endotracheal intubation was studied.Methods:Paramedic students were evaluated for early endotracheal skill acquisition in the operating room and by questionnaire.Results:Supplemental practice skills using either sheep or cadavers did not produce a statistically significant improvement in the percentage of successful clinical operating room intubations as compared to a group trained solely using intubation mannequins. More paramedics, certified and in practice, reported a statistically significant psychological benefit to supplemental cadaver training compared to supplemental animal (p<.05) and mannequin (p<.05) training.Conclusion:Adjunctive teaching sessions using animals or cadavers do not improve the acquisition of initial technical success in clinical intubation over the use of the mannequin alone.

Technology‐enhanced Simulation in Emergency Medicine: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis

“…[32][33][34] Only two studies measured patient effects when comparing cadaver or animal models to mannequin-based instruction and found these to be similar 30 or in favor of the nonmannequin modalities. 31 The latter study also measured skill product outcomes, and these favored the mannequin format (effect size = 1.31 in comparison with animal; 1.1 in comparison with cadaver). 31 Finally, a study comparing a white tail deer model to a mannequin model for teaching intubation found a moderate effect in favor of the animal model (effect size = 0.47) concerning time to complete this task.…”

“…There were 19 studies that used designs in which one approach to simulation-based education was compared with another (see Table 3). [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41] Twelve of the 19 studies included prehospital providers as participants, and nine of these studies focused on airway management training. Because the research questions in these 19 studies varied substantially, we were unable to provide a quantitative synthesis of results.…”

“…The other five studies compared different simulation modalities for procedural instruction purposes (i.e., mannequin vs. animal or cadaver models). [30][31][32][33][34] Learners generally preferred animal or cadaver models to mannequin models for teaching intubation or cricothyroidotomy skills (reaction effect size = 0.47 to 1.77, three studies). [32][33][34] Only two studies measured patient effects when comparing cadaver or animal models to mannequin-based instruction and found these to be similar 30 or in favor of the nonmannequin modalities.…”

Patient Outcomes in Simulation-Based Medical Education: A Systematic Review

“…In addition, we include in the present review nine studies making comparison with non-simulation instruction [71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79] and eight studies making comparison with alternate simulation. 71,[80][81][82][83][84][85][86] These comparisons with active interventions were included in previous meta-analyses. 14,15 Three articles omitted the number of trainees; we contacted these authors and two provided needed information.…”

“…71,[80][81][82][83][84][85][86] For these studies, we conducted meta-analyses according to seven (2) 14 (28) Randomized 2-group (3) 27 (56) Sampling: No. institutions (maximum 1.5) 1 (0.5) 37 (74) 2 ( Subjective (1) 4 (8) Objective (3) 46 (92) Validity evidence (maximum 3) Content (1) 7 (14) Internal structure (1) 3 (6) Relations to other variables (1) 3 (6) Data analysis: appropriate (maximum 1)…”