Review of Issues and Challenges of Practicing Emergency Medicine Above 30,000-Feet Altitude: 2 Anonymized Cases

Perception, confidence, and willingness to respond to in-flight medical emergencies among medical students: a cross sectional study

BACKGROUND

In-flight medical emergencies (IMEs) are expected to increase as air travel normalized in the post-COVID-19 era. However, few studies have examined health professions students' preparedness to respond to such emergencies. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate medical students' knowledge, confidence, and willingness to assist during an IME in their internship program.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey utilized an online, self-administered questionnaire-based survey targeted at medical students at two medical colleges in Saudi Arabia. The questionnaire comprised three parts: sociodemographic characteristics, knowledge about aviation medicine (10 items), and confidence (7 items)/willingness (4 items) to assist during an IME. Odds Ratios (OR) and 95% Confidence Intervals (95%CI) were computed to detect potential associations between the knowledge levels and the other independent variables. Responses to confidence and willingness questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale.

RESULTS

Overall, 61.4% of participants had inadequate knowledge scores for providing care during an IME, and the proportion of participants did not differ between those who had or had not attended life support courses (60.4% vs. 66.7%, p > 0.99). Only frequency of air travel ≥ two times per year was associated with higher odds of adequate knowledge score [OR = 1.89 (95%CI 1.14-3.17), p = 0.02]. In addition, 93.3% of the participants had low, 6.3% had moderate, and 0.8% had high willingness scores, while 86.3% had low, 12.2% had moderate, and 1.5% had high confidence scores. There were no differences in the proportion of participants with low, moderate, and high willingness or confidence scores by attendance in life support courses.

CONCLUSION

Even though over 8 in 10 students in our study had previously attended life support courses, the overwhelming majority lacked the knowledge, confidence, and willingness to assist. Our study underscores the importance of teaching medical students about IMEs and their unique challenges before entering their 7th-year mandatory general internship.

Impact of an Electronic App on Resident Responses to Simulated In-Flight Medical Emergencies: Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Health care providers are often called to respond to in-flight medical emergencies, but lack familiarity with expected supplies, interventions, and ground medical control support.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to determine whether a mobile phone app (airRx) improves responses to simulated in-flight medical emergencies.

METHODS

This was a randomized study of volunteer, nonemergency resident physician participants who managed simulated in-flight medical emergencies with or without the app. Simulations took place in a mock-up cabin in the simulation center. Standardized participants played the patient, family member, and flight attendant roles. Live, nonblinded rating was used with occasional video review for data clarification. Participants participated in two simulated in-flight medical emergencies (shortness of breath and syncope) and were evaluated with checklists and global rating scales (GRS). Checklist item success rates, key critical action times, GRS, and pre-post simulation confidence in managing in-flight medical emergencies were compared.

RESULTS

There were 29 participants in each arm (app vs control; N=58) of the study. Mean percentages of completed checklist items for the app versus control groups were mean 56.1 (SD 10.3) versus mean 49.4 (SD 7.4) for shortness of breath (P=.001) and mean 58 (SD 8.1) versus mean 49.8 (SD 7.0) for syncope (P<.001). The GRS improved with the app for the syncope case (mean 3.14, SD 0.89 versus control mean 2.6, SD 0.97; P=.003), but not the shortness of breath case (mean 2.90, SD 0.97 versus control mean 2.81, SD 0.80; P=.43). For timed checklist items, the app group contacted ground support faster for both cases, but the control group was faster to complete vitals and basic exam. Both groups indicated higher confidence in their postsimulation surveys, but the app group demonstrated a greater increase in this measure.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the airRx app prompted some actions, but delayed others. Simulated performance and feedback suggest the app is a useful adjunct for managing in-flight medical emergencies.