Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Neonatal airway simulators, how good are they? A comparative study of physical and functional fidelity

Journal of Perinatology volume 36, pages 151–156 (2016)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Objective:

Proficiency in airway management is critical for neonatal health-care professionals. Simulation is a proven method to improve airway management skills. Skills transfer from simulation to the real life requires simulators with appropriate physical and functional fidelity.

Study design:

A cohort of neonatal health-care professionals evaluated eight different neonatal airway simulators for physical and functional fidelity.

Result:

Twenty-seven subjects completed 151 simulator evaluations. Significant differences were found between the simulators evaluated (P<0.001). The manikins with the highest fidelity scores were the SimNewB, Newborn Anne and Premature Anne (Laerdal Medical). The task trainers with the highest fidelity scores were the Neonatal Intubation Trainer (Laerdal Medical) and the Newborn Airway Trainer (Syndaver Labs).

Conclusion:

Simulator fidelity is an important aspect of simulation training, but is rarely evaluated. The results of this study can aid in choosing the best simulators for training and research, and provide feedback to the industry to guide future simulator development.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Pediatrics. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Available at https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PFAssets/2013-PR-FAQ-PIF/320_pediatrics_07012013.pdf (accesssed 1 July 2013).

  2. Program Requirements for Graduate Medical Education in Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Available at https://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/portals/0/pfassets/2013-pr-faq-pif/329_neonatal_perinatal_peds_07012013.pdf (accessed 1 July 2013).

  3. Leone TA, Rich W, Finer. NN . Neonatal intubation: success of pediatric trainees. J Pediatr 2005; 146 (5): 638–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Downes K, Narendran V, Meinzen-Derr J, McClanahan S, Akinbi H . The lost art of intubation: assessing opportunities for residents to perform neonatal intubation. J Perinatol 2012; 32: 927–932.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. DeLaroche A, Riggs T, Maisels MJ . Impact of the new 16- hour duty period on pediatric interns' neonatal education. Clin Pediatr (Phila) 2014; 53 (1): 51–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lopreiato J, Sawyer T . Simulation-based medical education in pediatrics. Acad Pediatr 2015; 15 (2): 134–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Kennedy CC, Cannon EK, Warner DO, Cook DA . Advanced airway management simulation training in medical education: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 2014; 42 (1): 169–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Passiment M, Sacks H, Huang G . Medical Simulation in Medical Education: Results of an AAMC Survey. Association of American Medical Colleges: Washington, DC, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Johnson L, Mu T, Sawyer T . Use of medical simulation in neonatal-perinatal fellowship training programs. J Neonatal Perinatal Med 2012; 5 (4): 339–345.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hamstra SJ, Brydges R, Hatala R, Zendejas B, Cook DA . Reconsidering fidelity in simulation-based training. Acad Med 2014; 89 (3): 387–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Maran NJ, Glavin RJ . Low-to high-fidelity simulation—a continuum of medical education? Med Educ 2003; 37 (Suppl 1): 22–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Curtis M, DiazGranados D, Feldman M . Judicious use of simulation technology in continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof 2012; 32 (4): 255–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gagné RM . Training devices and simulators: some research issues. Am Psychol 1954; 9 (7): 95–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 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): 1204–1209.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Schebesta K, Hüpfl M, Ringl H, Machata AM, Chiari A, Kimberger O . A comparison of paediatric airway anatomy with the SimBaby high-fidelity patient simulator. Resuscitation 2011; 82 (4): 468–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Klotz JJ, Dooley-Hash SL, House JB, Andreatta PB . Pediatric and neonatal intubation training gap analysis: instruction, assessment, and technology. Simul Healthc 2014; 9 (6): 377–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bajka M, Tuchschmid S, Streich M, Fink D, Székely G, Harders M . Evaluation of a new virtual-reality training simulator for hysteroscopy. Surg Endosc 2009; 23 (9): 2026–2033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Barsness K, Rooney D, Davis L . Collaboration in simulation: the development and initial validation of a novel thoracoscopic neonatal simulator. J Pediatr Surg 2013; 48: 1232–1238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Sullivan G, Artino A . Analyzing and interpreting data from likert-type scales. J Grad Med Educ 2013; 5 (4): 541–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Trevisanuto D, Parotto M, Doglioni N, Ori C, Zanardo V, Micaglio M . The supreme Laryngeal Mask Airway™ (LMA): a new neonatal supraglottic device: comparison with Classic and ProSeal LMA in a manikin. Resuscitation 2012; 83 (1): 97–100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Micaglio M, Doglioni N, Parotto M, Zanardo V, Ori C, Trevisanuto D . Training for neonatal resuscitation with the laryngeal mask airway: a comparison of the LMA-ProSeal and the LMA-Classic in an airway management manikin. Paediatr Anaesth 2006; 16 (10): 1028–1031.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Micaglio M, Trevisanuto D, Doglioni N, Zanette G, Zanardo V, Ori C . The size 1 LMA-ProSeal: comparison with the LMA-Classic during pressure controlled ventilation in a neonatal intubation manikin. Resuscitation 2007; 72 (1): 124–127.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Saracoglu KT, Eti Z, Kavas AD, Umuroglu T . Straight video blades are advantageous than curved blades in simulated pediatric difficult intubation. Paediatr Anaesth 2014; 24 (3): 297–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Kalbhenn J, Boelke AK, Steinmann D . Prospective model-based comparison of different laryngoscopes for difficult intubation in infants. Paediatr Anaesth 2012; 22 (8): 776–780.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. McGaghie WC . Simulation in professional competence assessment: basic considerations. In: Tekian A, McGuire CH, McGaghie WC (eds). Innovative Simulations for Assessing Professional Competence. Department of Medical Education, University of Illinois at Chicago: Chicago, USA, 1999, pp 7–22.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the neonatal fellows, neonatal nurse practitioners and neonatologists in the University of Washington, Division of Neonatology for their participation in the study. The Premature Anne manikin used in this study was provided to the investigators on educational loan from Laerdal Medical before its commercial release. All other simulators used in this investigations were previously purchased and owned by the University of Washington Neonatal Education and Simulation-based Training (NEST) Program, or the University of Washington Institute for Simulation and Interprofessional Studies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Division of Neonatology, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA

    T Sawyer & T P Strandjord

  2. Division of Otolaryngology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA

    K Johnson

  3. Division of Anesthesiology, Seattle Children’s Hospital, Seattle, WA, USA

    D Low

Authors
  1. T Sawyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T P Strandjord
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. K Johnson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D Low
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T Sawyer.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sawyer, T., Strandjord, T., Johnson, K. et al. Neonatal airway simulators, how good are they? A comparative study of physical and functional fidelity. J Perinatol 36, 151–156 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.161

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/jp.2015.161

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links