Related Articles

Two hundred and fifty Fellows of the American Dental Society of Anesthesiology were surveyed concerning their personal preference of anesthetic technique, regional versus general anesthesia, through the use of two scenarios. Those surveyed preferred regional anesthesia as opposed to general anesthesia in both emergency and elective scenarios. These results are consistent with similar studies of anesthesiologists and nurse anesthetists, although these groups demonstrated an even greater bias toward regional anesthetic techniques.

Images

Images

Images

Images

Images

In order to determine if dentist anesthesiologists (DAs) actively contribute to research in the field of anesthesiology, and thus contribute new knowledge to the field, an extensive literature search was accomplished. DAs make up only 1.5% of dentists who actively contribute to anesthesia research but account for 10% of publications. To determine if the impact of DA research was similar to the American Dental Association (ADA) recognized specialties, h-indices of noted researchers in other specialties were compared to the h-indices of noted DA researchers. The results show that the impact of top DA researchers in dental anesthesiology is similar to the impact of top dental specialty researchers, despite lack of academic departments in dental schools where a large percentage of dental research is completed. Dentist anesthesiologists actively contribute to the research in anesthesiology for dentistry and thus, actively contribute to new knowledge in the field.

Background

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires an annual evaluation of all ACGME-accredited residency and fellowship programs to assess program quality. The results of this evaluation must be used to improve the program. This manuscript describes a metric to be used in conducting ACGME-mandated annual program review of ACGME-accredited anesthesiology residencies and fellowships.

Methods

A variety of metrics to assess anesthesiology residency and fellowship programs are identified by the authors through literature review and considered for use in constructing a program "report card."

Results

Metrics used to assess program quality include success in achieving American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) certification, performance on the annual ABA/American Society of Anesthesiology In-Training Examination, performance on mock oral ABA certification examinations, trainee scholarly activities (publications and presentations), accreditation site visit and internal review results, ACGME and alumni survey results, National Resident Matching Program (NRMP) results, exit interview feedback, diversity data and extensive program/rotation/faculty/curriculum evaluations by trainees and faculty. The results are used to construct a "report card" that provides a high-level review of program performance and can be used in a continuous quality improvement process.

Conclusions

An annual program review is required to assess all ACGME-accredited residency and fellowship programs to monitor and improve program quality. We describe an annual review process based on metrics that can be used to focus attention on areas for improvement and track program performance year-to-year. A "report card" format is described as a high-level tool to track educational outcomes.

The Ochsner Clinic Foundation Anesthesiology Residency Program is the oldest continuously accredited anesthesiology residency program in the state of Louisiana. As the American College of Graduate Medical Education has developed residency training requirements, so has the Ochsner training program evolved from a structure- and process-based program to an outcomes-based program. The author, associated with the program since 1983, reviewed Program Information Forms from 1971 to the present to track the evolution of the anesthesiology residency training program. The Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education demanded allocation of resources to residency training and mandated the demonstration of outcomes of training. The Ochsner Clinic Foundation Anesthesiology Residency Program has kept pace with these demands. The trend for graduate performance on written examinations has been upward. Fifty years ago, graduates practiced locally, but graduates now practice throughout the United States. Many completed fellowship training at increasingly higher profile institutions.

Two consecutive surveys of acute pancreatitis in Italy, based on more than 1000 patients with acute pancreatitis, reported that the etiology of the disease indicates biliary origin in about 60% of the cases. The United Kingdom guidelines report that severe gallstone pancreatitis in the presence of increasingly deranged liver function tests and signs of cholangitis (fever, rigors, and positive blood cultures) requires an immediate and therapeutic endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). These guidelines also recommend that patients with gallstone pancreatitis should undergo prompt cholecystectomy, possibly during the same hospitalization. However, a certain percentage of patients are unfit for cholecystectomy because advanced age and presence of comorbidity. We evaluated the early and long-term results of endoscopic intervention in relation to the anesthesiological risk for 87 patients with acute biliary pancreatitis. All patients underwent ERCP and were evaluated according to the American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) criteria immediately before the operative procedure. The severity of acute pancreatitis was positively related to the anesthesiological grade. There was no significant relationship between the frequency of biliopancreatic complications during the follow-up and the ASA grade. The frequency of cholecystectomy was inversely related to the ASA grade and multivariate analysis showed that the ASA grade and age were significantly related to survival. Finally, endoscopic treatment also appeared to be safe and effective in patients at high anesthesiological risk with acute pancreatitis. These results further support the hypothesis that endoscopic sphincterotomy might be considered a definitive treatment for patients with acute biliary pancreatitis and an elevated ASA grade.

Background

The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education requires residency programs to teach 6 core competencies and to provide evidence of effective standardized training through objective measures. George Washington University's Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine implemented a pilot program to address the interpersonal and communication skill competency. In this program, we aimed to pilot the Relationship Express model, a series of exercises in experiential learning to teach anesthesiology residents to build effective relationships with patients in time-limited circumstances. The purpose of this paper is to describe the application of this model for anesthesiology training.

Methods

A total of 7 first-year clinical anesthesiology residents participated in this pilot study, and 4 residents completed the entire program for analysis purposes. Relationship Express was presented in three 1.5-hour sessions: (1) introduction followed by 2-case, standardized patient pretest with feedback to residents from faculty observers; (2) interpersonal and communication skills didactic workshop with video behavior modeling; and (3) review discussion followed by 2-case, standardized patient posttest and evaluation.

Results

Modified Brookfield comments revealed the following themes: (1) time constraints were realistic compared with clinical practice; (2) admitting errors with patients was difficult; (3) patients were more aware of body language than anticipated; (4) residents liked the group discussions and the video interview; (5) standardized patients were convincing; and (6) residents found the feedback from faculty and standardized patients helpful.

Conclusions

Resident retrospective self-assessment and learning comments confirm the potential value of the Relationship Express model. This program will require further assessment and refinement with a larger number of residents.

Background

The admissions process for residency encompasses numerous objective and subjective measurements by which an applicant is evaluated. The personal interview and clinical evaluations are widely considered the most reliable method to identify unwanted behavioral characteristics. However, the role of a personal statement is less clear. There are reports of residency programs attempting to identify selfish or egocentric behavioral traits by counting the frequency of the first-person pronoun “I” in personal statements. The purpose of this study is to define the relationship between anesthesiology resident evaluations and the frequency of the first-person pronoun within their personal statements.

Methods

Resident evaluations of 48 anesthesiology graduates were collected for 5 competencies. The iScore was calculated by determining the frequency of “I” in relation to total word count.

Results

Correlation analysis between iScore and the 5 evaluation categories showed no significant relationship.

Conclusion

When examining the relationship between resident evaluations and iScore, the lack of significant correlation makes it difficult to predict resident performance based on “I” counts. This may be because the personal statement is a thoughtfully developed document that undergoes extensive editing, which may suppress or minimize writing styles that suggest the presence of unwanted behavioral traits. Further examination of personal statements with a larger sample size and data from other institutions and specialties are needed.

High-fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) has been hypothesized as a modality for assessing competency of knowledge and skill in patient simulation, but uniform methods for HFPS performance assessment (PA) have not yet been completely achieved. Anesthesiology as a field founded the HFPS discipline and also leads in its PA. This project reviews the types, quality, and designated purpose of HFPS PA tools in anesthesiology. We used the systematic review method and systematically reviewed anesthesiology literature referenced in PubMed to assess the quality and reliability of available PA tools in HFPS. Of 412 articles identified, 50 met our inclusion criteria. Seventy seven percent of studies have been published since 2000; more recent studies demonstrated higher quality. Investigators reported a variety of test construction and validation methods. The most commonly reported test construction methods included "modified Delphi Techniques" for item selection, reliability measurement using inter-rater agreement, and intra-class correlations between test items or subtests. Modern test theory, in particular generalizability theory, was used in nine (18%) of studies. Test score validity has been addressed in multiple investigations and shown a significant improvement in reporting accuracy. However the assessment of predicative has been low across the majority of studies. Usability and practicality of testing occasions and tools was only anecdotally reported. To more completely comply with the gold standards for PA design, both shared experience of experts and recognition of test construction standards, including reliability and validity measurements, instrument piloting, rater training, and explicit identification of the purpose and proposed use of the assessment tool, are required.

Background

Articles cited counts are catalogued and help identify landmark papers. This study provides a citation classics of anesthesiology literature using the framework of subspecialties to provide a review of well-developed areas of research in anesthesiology.

Methods

A comprehensive list of the most-cited articles in anesthesia was compiled using a bibliometric database and general search terms such as "anesthesia" as well as subspecialty-specific search terms. Queries were reviewed for relevance to anesthesiology practice, categorized by subspecialty, and ranked according to their citation counts.

Results

The database resulted in 2519 articles published between 1945 and 2008. The specialty areas most represented were chronic pain medicine (11%), pharmacology (9%), and pain sciences (9%).

Conclusions

This citations classic allows for advances in anesthesiology and its subspecialties to be highlighted as well to provide useful manuscripts to guide patient care, direct future research, and serve as sources for future academic pursuit.

Background

Mentorship is perceived as important for academic department development. The purpose of this study was to survey physicians in an academic anesthesiology department before and after the initiation of a formal mentorship program to evaluate the impact of the program over a 1-year period.

Methods

The effectiveness of establishing a mentorship program to promote career advancement was prospectively and anonymously evaluated by 52 anesthesiologists in an academic, tertiary care facility with a large residency program (>130 residents). We asked these physicians to complete a questionnaire on mentorship 2 weeks prior to and 3 months and 12 months after the establishment of the mentorship program. We used data from 26 (50%) participants who completed all 3 surveys to evaluate the impact of the formal mentorship program.

Results

Baseline survey results revealed that the majority of anesthesiologists (71%) in our academic, tertiary care facility believed that mentoring was important/very important, but only 46% indicated that mentoring had been an important/very important contribution in their careers. Overall, the respondents' ratings of mentorship importance over the 1-year period did not increase despite the establishment of a formal program.

Conclusion

We present the first known study that sequentially followed physician evaluations of mentorship importance after the establishment of a mentorship program within an academic anesthesiology department. Study participants considered allotted, structured time for the mentors and mentees to focus on mentorship activities as necessary to provide the best opportunity for program success according to the general informal consensus of the participants in the study.