Skip to main content

A call for collaboration and consensus on training for endotracheal intubation in the medical intensive care unit

Abstract

Endotracheal intubation (EI) is a potentially lifesaving but high-risk procedure in critically ill patients. While the ACGME mandates that trainees in pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) achieve competence in this procedure, there is wide variation in EI training across the USA. One study suggests that 40% of the US PCCM trainees feel they would not be proficient in EI upon graduation. This article presents a review of the EI training literature; the recommendations of a national group of PCCM, anesthesiology, emergency medicine, and pediatric experts; and a call for further research, collaboration, and consensus guidelines.

Main text

Endotracheal intubation (EI) is a potentially lifesaving but high-risk procedure in critically ill patients [1]. Complications occur in more than half of all adult intensive care unit (ICU) endotracheal intubations with severe hypoxemia in 26% and hemodynamic collapse in 25% [2]. At the extreme, cardiac arrest occurs in up to 3% and death in up to 1% of patients [2, 3]. These rates reflect the anatomic, physiologic, and situational complexity of EI in the critically ill patient [4,5,6]. While the ACGME mandates that trainees in pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) be competent in this procedure, there is wide variation in the number of EI procedures, the type of EI experiences, and the nature of organized training for this procedure in PCCM programs across the USA [7, 8]. In one survey of PCCM program directors (PDs), 14% of programs reported providing no bedside ICU intubation experiences and 5% reported no formal EI training methodology at all [8]. A separate national survey of PCCM PDs and fellows documented that as many as 67% of programs had no protocol for teaching EI and also noted significant discrepancy between PD and fellow perceptions of training for EI [9]. Forty percent of PCCM trainees felt they would not be proficient in EI upon completion of training [9].

On average, PCCM PDs felt that trainees required 33 EI experiences to become proficient in this procedure [9]. A similar study found that 2/3rds of PCCM PDs felt that < 39 direct laryngoscopy experiences were sufficient to obtain competence [8]. In that same study, 67% of PDs reported that their fellows performed less than 50 intubations total during their training [8]. However, a recent systematic review of 19,108 intubations performed by anesthesia residents and students concluded that many more than 50 experiences are likely required to achieve competence in non-elective EI [10]. Similarly, a large single-center review of pediatric critical care trainees revealed that at least 50 endotracheal intubations are required to attain a 90% overall success rate in out-of-operating-room intubation [11]. One small study concluded that at least 75 procedures are required for emergency medicine trainees to achieve competence in emergent EI [12]. A recent analysis of close to 1000 ICU intubations performed predominantly by PCCM providers revealed a significant increase in the lowest oxygen saturation experienced by critically ill adults undergoing tracheal intubation between 100 and 200 previous operator EIs [13]. Still others advocate for 200 intubations to achieve independent practice in EI in the ICU [14]. Finally, a recent study concluded that greater than 240 experiences are required for competence in EI during cardiopulmonary resuscitation [15]. Satisfactory training for EI in the critically ill likely requires a high number of procedures to achieve competence.

Many programs utilize airway rotations with operating room (OR) experiences for EI training [8]. However, compared to those performed in the OR, EIs performed in the ICU are associated with challenging glottic visualization, higher incidence of “difficult” airways, increased the need for adjunct devices, lower first-pass success, higher incidence of complications, and higher failure rates [6]. Not surprisingly, trainee learning curves vary across environments, with competence in elective OR intubation reported after as few as 43 experiences, but far greater for non-elective procedures [10,11,12,13,14, 16]. While OR EI experiences contribute to attainment of competence in this procedure, they may not offer sufficient situational, physiologic, or anatomic complexity to obviate the need for ICU EI experiences.

Additionally, most programs utilize airway simulators for EI training [8]. However, modern airway management simulators have airway dimensions and tissue compressibility characteristics that significantly differ from those of humans [17, 18]. Similarly, individual manikins differ such that competence achieved on one model may not translate to competence in others [19]. Overall however, a recent systematic analysis of 17 studies concluded that simulation-based airway management training is no better than non-simulation based training [20]. Current recommendations support airway management simulation as an adjunctive tool to bridge the gap between classroom instruction and practical application [18, 21] (Table 1).

Table 1 Immediate recommendations

Importantly, there is increasing recognition that experience alone may not be efficient or effective for attainment of procedural competence [22]. At the same time, increasing the use of high flow nasal cannula and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation, non-PCCM providers managing the airway in the ICU, and increasing number of trainees competing for EIs may be resulting in fewer EI experience for individual trainees. Thankfully, recent PCCM studies have shown that improvements in EI education do translate to improved first pass success, decreased incidence of hypoxia, and decreased incidence of tube misplacement [23,24,25]. That is, several interventions to improve the quality (rather than quantity) of intubation experiences have shown promise for accelerating attainment of trainee competence and improving patient outcomes. Most notably, deliberate practice—intentional sequential experiences with expert observation and immediate feedback for the deliberate goal of improvement—has been shown to improve learner and patient outcomes in central venous catheterization, lumbar puncture, pediatric resuscitation, paracentesis, hernia repair, and cricothyroidotomy, as well as endotracheal intubation [26,27,28,29]. Similarly, expert “coaching”—structured, real-time, expert feedback—has been shown to optimize the quality of EI training encounters and improve neonatal intubation success rates [30]. Likewise, expert modeling—observation of expert demonstration of expected goal behaviors and performance—has been shown to improve behavior and technical skills in neonatal resuscitation and has been proposed as a means to accelerate attainment of competence in EI [31, 32]. Real-time video as well as delayed audio and video recording have also been shown to facilitate deliberate practice, expert coaching, and expert modeling interventions [29, 32, 33]. Incorporation of procedural training advancements will enhance the educational value of intubation experiences and accelerate acquisition of skills.

It has been argued that the anesthesiologist should be the specialist of choice for airway management in the ICU [3]. PCCM specialists have argued the opposite, while emergency medicine specialists have sought to show equivalent outcomes between proceduralists of differing specialties [34,35,36]. Importantly, the harm caused by medical “silos” is well recognized, as is the benefit of intra-specialty collaboration [37,38,39,40]. Realistically, it is training and experience, rather than specialty, that most determines proficiency in this procedure [41]. As such, PCCM trainees would benefit from deliberate program efforts to ensure access to non-elective and ICU EI experiences. Likewise, both trainees and patients would benefit from EI training that leverages the perspectives, expertise, and research of all invested specialties even across borders where feasible.

Finally, while training guidelines have been generated for many medical procedures common to the ICU, and guidelines have been generated for EI training in other environments, no consensus guidelines have been established for training in this procedure in this environment [42,43,44,45]. Similarly, while competency assessment tools have been established to facilitate modern bronchoscopy training, few such tools exist for training in EI [46]. Such guidelines and tools would likely do much to decrease variation and increase trainee competence.

Conclusions

In summary, the current PCCM EI training environment is characterized by wide variation in practice, and graduating intensivists who consider themselves unprepared for this procedure [8, 9]. Overall, we recommend deliberate, longitudinal, individualized, competency-based airway management programs characterized by simulated and OR practice as a bridge to high-frequency real-life ICU EI experiences (Table 1). Incorporation of modern procedural training advances (i.e., mastery learning/deliberate practice techniques, expert modeling, video laryngoscopy with real-time coaching) will be imperative to improve the educational value of individual training experiences and to accelerate acquisition of proficiency. Even with modern, individualized, competency-based training, however, a high volume of EI experiences in the ICU will be required for trainee proficiency in that setting. Deliberate effort to provide trainees with sufficient non-elective EI experiences will likely be required. Excellence in this endeavor will require not only the incorporation of knowledge accumulated by all invested specialties, but also active multispecialty training collaboration. Finally, consensus PCCM EI training guidelines and evidence-based assessment tools will be crucial to decrease variation and ensure standardized trainee competence.

Availability of data and materials

N/A

Abbreviations

EI:

Endotracheal intubation

ICU:

Intensive care unit

PCCM:

Pulmonary and critical care medicine

PD:

Program director

OR:

Operating room

References

  1. 1.

    Griesdale DE, Bosma TL, Kurth T, Isac G, Chittock DR. Complications of endotracheal intubation in the critically ill. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34(10):1835–42.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Jaber S, Amraoui J, Lefrant JY, et al. Clinical practice and risk factors for immediate complications of endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a prospective, multiple-center study. Crit Care Med. 2006;34(9):2355–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Walz JM. Point: should an anesthesiologist be the specialist of choice in managing the difficult airway in the ICU? Yes. Chest. 2012;142(6):1372–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Brindley PG, Beed M, Law JA, et al. Airway management outside the operating room: how to better prepare. Can J Anaesth. 2017;64(5):530–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Asai T. Airway management inside and outside operating rooms-circumstances are quite different. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120(2):207–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Taboada M, Doldan P, Calvo A, et al. Comparison of tracheal intubation conditions in operating room and intensive care unit: a prospective, Observational Study. Anesthesiology. 2018;129(2):321–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. 2017 ACGME Program requirements for graduate medical education in pulmonary disease and critical care medicine. https://www.acgme.org/Portals/0/PFAssets/ProgramRequirements/156_pulmonary_critical_care_2017-07-01.pdf. Accessed 12th Apr 2019.

  8. 8.

    Joffe AM, Liew EC, Olivar H, et al. A national survey of airway management training in United States internal medicine-based critical care fellowship programs. Respir Care. 2012;57(7):1084–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Chichra A, Naval P, Dibello C, Tsegaye A, Mayo P, Koenig S, Narasimhan M. Barriers to training pulmonary and critical care fellows in emergency endotracheal intubation across the United States. Chest. 2011;140(4):1036A.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Buis ML, Maissan IM, Hoeks SE, Klimek M, Stolker RJ. Defining the learning curve for endotracheal intubation using direct laryngoscopy: a systematic review. Resuscitation. 2016;99:63–71.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ishizuka M, Rangarajan V, Sawyer TL, et al. The development of tracheal intubation proficiency outside the operating suite during pediatric critical care medicine fellowship training: a retrospective cohort study using cumulative sum analysis. Pediatr Crit Care Med. 2016;17(7):e309–16.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Je S, Cho Y, Choi HJ, Kang B, Lim T, Kang H. An application of the learning curve-cumulative summation test to evaluate training for endotracheal intubation in emergency medicine. Emerg Med J. 2015;32(4):291–4.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Brown W, Janz DR, Russell D, Joffe AM, James DM, Vonderhaar DJ, West JR, Rice TW, Semler MW, Casey JD. Effect of operator experience on outcomes of emergency airway management: the ICU intubation learning curve. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2019;199:A5985.

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Bernhard M, Mohr S, Weigand MA, Martin E, Walther A. Developing the skill of endotracheal intubation: implication for emergency medicine. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2012;56(2):164–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kim SY, Park SO, Kim JW, et al. How much experience do rescuers require to achieve successful tracheal intubation during cardiopulmonary resuscitation? Resuscitation. 2018;133:187–92.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    De Oliveira Filho GR. The construction of learning curves for basic skills in anesthetic procedures: an application for the cumulative sum method. Anesth Analg. 2002;95(2):411–6 table of contents.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Schebesta K, Hüpfl M, Rössler B, Ringl H, Müller MP, Kimberger O. Degrees of reality: airway anatomy of high-fidelity human patient simulators and airway trainers. Anesthesiology. 2012;116(6):1204–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Klock PA. Airway simulators and mannequins: a case of high infidelity? Anesthesiology. 2012;116(6):1179–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Wong W, Kedarisetty S, Delson N, et al. The effect of cross-training with adjustable airway model anatomies on laryngoscopy skill transfer. Anesth Analg. 2011;113(4):862–8.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sun Y, Pan C, Li T, Gan TJ. Airway management education: simulation based training versus non-simulation based training-a systematic review and meta-analyses. BMC Anesthesiol. 2017;17(1):17.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Yang D, Wei YK, Xue FS, Deng XM, Zhi J. Simulation-based airway management training: application and looking forward. J Anesth. 2016;30(2):284–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Feinglass J, Mcgaghie WC, Wayne DB. Residents’ procedural experience does not ensure competence: a research synthesis. J Grad Med Educ. 2017;9(2):201–8.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Jaber S, Jung B, Corne P, et al. An intervention to decrease complications related to endotracheal intubation in the intensive care unit: a prospective, multiple-center study. Intensive Care Med. 2010;36(2):248–55.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Mosier JM, Malo J, Sakles JC, et al. The impact of a comprehensive airway management training program for pulmonary and critical care medicine fellows. A three-year experience. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2015;12(4):539–48.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Malo J, Hypes C, Natt B, Cristan E, Greenberg J, Morrissette K, Snyder L, Knepler J, Sakles J, Knox K, Mosier J. Airway registry and training curriculum improve intubation outcomes in the intensive care unit. Southwest J Pulm Crit Care. 2018;16(4):212–23.

  26. 26.

    Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Potts S, et al. Dissemination of a simulation-based mastery learning intervention reduces central line-associated bloodstream infections. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(9):749–56.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Barsuk JH, Cohen ER, Caprio T, Mcgaghie WC, Simuni T, Wayne DB. Simulation-based education with mastery learning improves residents’ lumbar puncture skills. Neurology. 2012;79(2):132–7.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Petrosoniak A, Lu M, Gray S, et al. Perfecting practice: a protocol for assessing simulation-based mastery learning and deliberate practice versus self-guided practice for bougie-assisted cricothyroidotomy performance. BMC Med Educ. 2019;19(1):100.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Mayo PH, Hegde A, Eisen LA, Kory P, Doelken P. A program to improve the quality of emergency endotracheal intubation. J Intensive Care Med. 2011;26(1):50–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Volz S, Stevens TP, Dadiz R. A randomized controlled trial: does coaching using video during direct laryngoscopy improve residents’ success in neonatal intubations? J Perinatol. 2018;38(8):1074–80.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hackmann H, Leonard D, Anderson JM. Expert modeling improves the acquisition of technical and behavioral skills in neonatal resuscitation training. Washington, D.C: Poster presented at: American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Gilhooly J, Redden HR, Leonard DT. Competency in neonatal endotracheal intubation: mission impossible? Pediatrics. 2015;135(5):e1290–1.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Kardash K, Tessler MJ. Videotape feedback in teaching laryngoscopy. Can J Anaesth. 1997;44(1):54–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Doerschug KC. Counterpoint: should an anesthesiologist be the specialist of choice in managing the difficult airway in the ICU? Not necessarily. Chest. 2012;142(6):1375–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Levitan RM, Rosenblatt B, Meiner EM, Reilly PM, Hollander JE. Alternating day emergency medicine and anesthesia resident responsibility for management of the trauma airway: a study of laryngoscopy performance and intubation success. Ann Emerg Med. 2004;43(1):48–53.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Bushra JS, Mcneil B, Wald DA, Schwell A, Karras DJ. A comparison of trauma intubations managed by anesthesiologists and emergency physicians. Acad Emerg Med. 2004;11(1):66–70.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Bongiovanni T, Long T, Khan AM, Siegel MD. Bringing specialties together: the power of intra-professional teams. J Grad Med Educ. 2015;7(1):19–20.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Samuels MA. The importance of collaboration among physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(14):1301.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Kovitz KL. Three cheers for the crumbling silo: the lesson of how a minor procedure can have a major impact. Chest. 2013;144(2):368–9.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    October TW, Dizon ZB, Hamilton MF, Madrigal VN, Arnold RM. Communication training for inter-specialty clinicians. Clin Teach. 2019;16(3):242–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Fouche PF, Middleton PM, Zverinova KM. Training and experience are more important than the type of practitioner for intubation success. Crit Care. 2013;17(1):412.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Moureau N, Lamperti M, Kelly LJ, et al. Evidence-based consensus on the insertion of central venous access devices: definition of minimal requirements for training. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110(3):347–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Akhtar S, Theodoro D, Gaspari R, et al. Resident training in emergency ultrasound: consensus recommendations from the 2008 Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors Conference. Acad Emerg Med. 2009;16(Suppl 2):S32–6.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Ernst A, Wahidi MM, Read CA, et al. Adult bronchoscopy training: current state and suggestions for the future: CHEST expert panel report. Chest. 2015;148(2):321–32.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Gowens P, Aitken-Fell P, Broughton W, Harris L, Williams J, Younger P, Bywater D, Crookston C, Curatolo L, Edwards T, Freshwater E, House M, Jones A, Millins M, Pilbery R, Standen S, Wiggin C. Consensus statement: a framework for safe and effective intubation by paramedics. BPJ. 2018;3(1):23–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Voduc N, Adamson R, Kashgari A, et al. Development of learning curves for bronchoscopy results of a multicentre study of pulmonary trainees. Chest. 2020;S0012–3692(20):31840–7.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None

Funding

Wade Brown, MD, is supported by AHRQ grant 1 T32 HS026122-01.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

W.B. performed the literature review, solicited input from national specialist experts, and wrote the manuscript. L.S. reviewed the manuscript, offered PCCM education expert recommendations, and provided additional assistance with literature review. A.B., A. N, M.P., and J.D. reviewed the manuscript and offered PCCM education expert recommendations. A.J., W.S., and P.M. reviewed the manuscript, offered non-PCCM expert advice on endotracheal intubation training, and provided non-PCCM specialty literature review. G.C. devised the project, offered PCCM education expert recommendations, reviewed the manuscript, and supervised the work. The authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Wade Brown.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

N/A

Consent for publication

N/A

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brown, W., Santhosh, L., Brady, A.K. et al. A call for collaboration and consensus on training for endotracheal intubation in the medical intensive care unit. Crit Care 24, 621 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03317-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Intubation, intratracheal
  • Education
  • Emergency medicine
  • Critical care
  • Anesthesiology
  • Teaching
  • Critical illness
  • Laryngoscopy
  • Manikins
  • Learning curve
  • Education, medical, graduate
  • Consensus
  • Guideline