The use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room: A systematic review.

This study aimed to describe how video laryngoscopy is used outside the operating room within the hospital setting. Specifically, we aimed to summarise the evidence for the use of video laryngoscopy outside the operating room, and detail how it appears in current clinical practice guidelines. A literature search was conducted across two databases (MEDLINE and Embase), and all articles underwent screening for relevance to our aims and pre-determined exclusion criteria. Our results include 14 clinical practice guidelines, 12 interventional studies, 38 observational studies. Our results show that video laryngoscopy is likely to improve glottic view and decrease the incidence of oesophageal intubations; however, it remains unclear as to how this contributes to first-pass success, overall intubation success and clinical outcomes such as mortality outside the operating room. Furthermore, our results indicate that the appearance of video laryngoscopy in clinical practice guidelines has increased in recent years, and particularly through the COVID-19 pandemic. Current COVID-19 airway management guidelines unanimously introduce video laryngoscopy as a first-line (rather than rescue) device.

Smartphone use and perceptions of their benefit and detriment within Australian anaesthetic practice.

The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the perceptions of Australian anaesthetists in relation to smartphone use within anaesthetic practice. In particular, we aimed to assess the frequency of smartphone use, the types and number of smartphone applications used, how reliant anaesthetists perceive themselves to be on smartphones and whether they perceive them to be a factor that aids or distracts from their practice. Secondly, we assessed whether there is an association between the type, frequency, reliance and perceptions of smartphone use and the years of experience as an anaesthetist. A 24-item questionnaire addressing these questions was created and distributed to an email list of credentialled anaesthetists in Melbourne, Australia. A total of 113 consultant anaesthetists who practise at 55 hospitals in Melbourne completed the questionnaire. Our results suggest that the majority of anaesthetists are using smartphones regularly in their practice. About 74% of respondents agreed that they rely on their smartphone for their work. We found that respondents were more likely to rely on smartphones and consider them to aid patient safety than to consider them a distraction. This phenomenon was particularly apparent in those who had been a consultant anaesthetist for less than three years. Furthermore, those who had been a consultant anaesthetist for less than three years were more likely to have more smartphone apps relating to anaesthetics, use them more often and rely on them to a greater degree. Our results highlight the ubiquitous and perceived useful nature of smartphones in anaesthetic practice.