PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16800226

The inventors.

Abstract

Amongst Australian anaesthetists there have been many whose ingenuity and mechanical knowledge produced ingenious devices. Lidwill and Geoffrey Kaye come immediately to mind, and their contributions are well-described elsewhere. In this paper, two inventions with contrasting fates are described: the Grant Humidifier and the Komesaroff single-use analgesia device. Graham Grant's invention addressed the problem of rain-out in a most ingenious manner The device was compact, efficient and deserved greater commercial success, but a similar apparatus developed in New Zealand was better supported and captured most of the market. Grant has a degree in engineering, acquired before his medical degree, but David Komesaroff spent only a year in the Engineering Faculty before transferring to Medicine. Nevertheless, he has remained interested and in touch with technical matters, and has a number of other devices to his credit. Mention is briefly made of others: Stokes (of the suction bullet), Bill Cole (an early volatile specific vaporiser), Fisk (the paediatric ventilator) and Noel Cass (the Cass needle) These achievements are by no means the end of the road. Already an Australian-designed single-use laryngoscope is being manufactured and launched on both the national and international markets.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

R Holland. 2006. The inventors.. https://doi.org/10.1177/0310057x0603401s06

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Perception of training needs and opportunities in advanced airway skills: a survey of British and Irish trainees.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: We surveyed delegates at the Group of Anaesthetists in Training (UK) meeting to investigate evidence of a training-gap (number of fibreoptic intubations believed to bestow competence vs. number actually performed). METHODS: Questionnaires were distributed to and collected from delegates in person. Questions covered six areas, including experience of fibreoptic intubation and cricothyrotomy, fibreoptic intubation as a specialist skill and ethical issues. RESULTS: We received 221 replies (76%). All trainees believed competence to be achievable with 10 intubations (interquartile range (IQR) 10-20); the median number performed was 2 (IQR 0-4). This was statistically significant for the groups' senior house officers, 1st and 2nd year registrars and 3rd and 4th year registrars; P < 0.0001. Many final year trainees (12/20, 60%) also failed to achieve their competency target. Few trainees had seen or performed any cricothyrotomies (medians 0, IQRs 0-1 and 0-0). Most (195/208, 94%) believed that fibreoptic intubation was a core skill and 199/212 (94%) believed that all should be competent by completion of training. Ten percent (n = 208) felt it unethical to perform an awake training intubation with full consent and 10% believed it acceptable without explanation. Most (82.7%) would fibreoptically intubate an asleep patient (requiring intubation) without consent. CONCLUSION: Trainees reported a gap between their perception of competence and achievement in awake fibreoptic intubation. Simple and complex simulations and structured training programmes may help. Anaesthetists must address the ethics of clinical training in advanced airway management.

Anesthesiology↗