A Cross-Sectional Survey of Anesthetic Airway Equipment and Airway Management Practices in Uganda

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia-related causes contribute to a significant proportion of perioperative deaths, especially in low and middle-income countries (LMICs). There is evidence that complications related to failed airway management are a significant contributor to perioperative morbidity and mortality. While existing data have highlighted the magnitude of airway management complications in LMICs, there are inadequate data to understand their root causes. This study aimed to pilot an airway management capacity tool that evaluates airway management resources, provider practices, and experiences with difficult airways in an attempt to better understand potential contributing factors to airway management challenges. METHODS: We developed a novel airway management capacity assessment tool through a nonsystematic review of existing literature on anesthesia and airway management in LMICs, internationally recognized difficult airway algorithms, minimum standards for equipment, the safe practice of anesthesia, and the essential medicines and health supplies list of Uganda. We distributed the survey tool during conferences and workshops, to anesthesia care providers from across the spectrum of surgical care facilities in Uganda. The data were analyzed using descriptive methods. RESULTS: Between May 2017 and May 2018, 89 of 93 surveys were returned (17% of anesthesia providers in the country) from all levels of health facilities that provide surgical services in Uganda. Equipment for routine airway management was available to all anesthesia providers surveyed, but with a limited range of sizes. Pediatric airway equipment was always available 54% of the time. There was limited availability of capnography (15%), video laryngoscopes (4%), cricothyroidotomy kits (6%), and fiber-optic bronchoscopes (7%). Twenty-one percent (18/87) of respondents reported experiencing a “can’t intubate, can’t ventilate” (CICV) scenario in the 12 months preceding the survey, while 63% (54/86) reported experiencing at least 1 CICV during their career. Eighty-five percent (74/87) of respondents reported witnessing a severe airway management complication during their career, with 21% (19/89) witnessing a death as a result of a CICV scenario. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and implemented an airway management capacity tool that describes airway management practices in Uganda. Using this tool, we have identified significant gaps in access to airway management resources. Gaps identified by the survey, along with advocacy by the Association of Anesthesiologists of Uganda, in partnership with the Ugandan Ministry of Health, have led to some progress in closing these gaps. Expanding the availability of airway management resources further, providing more airway management training, and identifying opportunities to support skilled workforce expansion have the potential to improve perioperative safety in Uganda.