BACKGROUND: Video laryngoscopy (VL) has emerged as a critical tool in the "difficult airway" armamentarium of emergency physicians. The resultant increase in the types of available VL devices has made Emergency Medicine Residency (EMR) training in VL increasingly challenging. Additionally, the prevalence of VL devices in the community is unknown. Because Emergency Medicine (EM) residents go on to work in diverse settings, many in non-EMR emergency departments (EDs), it is preferable that they receive training on the airway modalities they will encounter in practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence and type of VL devices in EMR programs to non-EMR EDs. METHODS: This was a survey study conducted from July 2012 to October 2012 of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited, MD EMR programs in the United States and non-EMR EDs in New York State. A chi-squared test was performed to determine whether the difference in VL prevalence was significant. RESULTS: There were 158 EMR programs and 132 non-EMR EDs surveyed; 97.8% of EMR and 84.3% of non-EMR EDs reported having some form of VL in their departments. The difference in proportion of EMR vs. non-EMR EDs that have VL was χ(2) = 13 (p < 0.001). The Glidescope® device (Verathon Medical, Bothell, WA) was present in 87.7% of EMR programs and 79.3% of non-EMR EDs. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of EMR programs trained residents in VL. The Glidescope device was used most frequently. Non-EMR EDs in New York State had a lower presence of VL devices, with the Glidescope device again being the most common. These results demonstrate that VL is pervasive in both practice environments.
BACKGROUND: Video laryngoscopy (VL) has emerged as a critical tool in the "difficult airway" armamentarium of emergency physicians. The resultant increase in the types of available VL devices has made Emergency Medicine Residency (EMR) training in VL increasingly challenging. Additionally, the prevalence of VL devices in the community is unknown. Because Emergency Medicine (EM) residents go on to work in diverse settings, many in non-EMR emergency departments (EDs), it is preferable that they receive training on the airway modalities they will encounter in practice. OBJECTIVE: To compare the prevalence and type of VL devices in EMR programs to non-EMR EDs. METHODS: This was a survey study conducted from July 2012 to October 2012 of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited, MD EMR programs in the United States and non-EMR EDs in New York State. A chi-squared test was performed to determine whether the difference in VL prevalence was significant. RESULTS: There were 158 EMR programs and 132 non-EMR EDs surveyed; 97.8% of EMR and 84.3% of non-EMR EDs reported having some form of VL in their departments. The difference in proportion of EMR vs. non-EMR EDs that have VL was χ(2) = 13 (p < 0.001). The Glidescope® device (Verathon Medical, Bothell, WA) was present in 87.7% of EMR programs and 79.3% of non-EMR EDs. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of EMR programs trained residents in VL. The Glidescope device was used most frequently. Non-EMR EDs in New York State had a lower presence of VL devices, with the Glidescope device again being the most common. These results demonstrate that VL is pervasive in both practice environments.
Authors: Emma J Perkins; Jonathan L Begley; Fiona M Brewster; Nathan D Hanegbi; Arun A Ilancheran; David J Brewster Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-20 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Derek L Monette; Calvin A Brown; Justin L Benoit; Jason T McMullan; Steven C Carleton; Michael T Steuerwald; Andrew Eyre; Daniel J Pallin Journal: AEM Educ Train Date: 2019-01-15