Use of Cognitive Aids: Results from a National Survey among Anaesthesia Providers in France and Canada.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anesthesiology Research and Practice Pub Date : 2020-05-06 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1155/2020/1346051
Antonia Blanié, Matthieu Kurrek, Sophie Gorse, Dimitri Baudrier, Dan Benhamou
{"title":"Use of Cognitive Aids: Results from a National Survey among Anaesthesia Providers in France and Canada.","authors":"Antonia Blanié,&nbsp;Matthieu Kurrek,&nbsp;Sophie Gorse,&nbsp;Dimitri Baudrier,&nbsp;Dan Benhamou","doi":"10.1155/2020/1346051","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of cognitive aids (CAs) during critical events is thought to be useful. However, whether CAs are known and used by French and Canadian anaesthesia providers is not clear.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey was emailed to French and Canadian anaesthesia providers in 2017 through their respective national societies. It consisted of 23 questions about the participants' demographics and their knowledge, use, and impact of CAs. A second survey was sent to French simulation centres.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>912 responses were recorded in France and 278 in Canada (overall response rate: 7% and 11%, respectively). Among the respondents, 700/899 in France (78%) versus 249/273 (91%) in Canada were familiar with the concept of cognitive dysfunction during a crisis and 501/893 (56%) in France versus 250/271 (92%) in Canada knew the concept of CAs. Amongst those respondents who knew about CAs, 189/492 (38%) in France versus 108/244 (44%) in Canada stated that they had already used a CA in real life and 225/493 (45%) in France versus 126/245 (51%) in Canada had received training in their use. Simulation was the principal modality for training in 150/225 (67%) of cases in France versus 47/126 (37%) in Canada. Among the 28/50 French simulation centres which responded (2018 January), 27 organised sessions in anaesthesia and 22 used CAs.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>CAs were better known in Canada than in France, but their actual use in real life was low in both countries. Simulation appears to play a potentially important role training anaesthesia providers in the use of CAs.</p>","PeriodicalId":7834,"journal":{"name":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","volume":"2020 ","pages":"1346051"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2020-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1155/2020/1346051","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anesthesiology Research and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/1346051","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction: The use of cognitive aids (CAs) during critical events is thought to be useful. However, whether CAs are known and used by French and Canadian anaesthesia providers is not clear.

Methods: A survey was emailed to French and Canadian anaesthesia providers in 2017 through their respective national societies. It consisted of 23 questions about the participants' demographics and their knowledge, use, and impact of CAs. A second survey was sent to French simulation centres.

Results: 912 responses were recorded in France and 278 in Canada (overall response rate: 7% and 11%, respectively). Among the respondents, 700/899 in France (78%) versus 249/273 (91%) in Canada were familiar with the concept of cognitive dysfunction during a crisis and 501/893 (56%) in France versus 250/271 (92%) in Canada knew the concept of CAs. Amongst those respondents who knew about CAs, 189/492 (38%) in France versus 108/244 (44%) in Canada stated that they had already used a CA in real life and 225/493 (45%) in France versus 126/245 (51%) in Canada had received training in their use. Simulation was the principal modality for training in 150/225 (67%) of cases in France versus 47/126 (37%) in Canada. Among the 28/50 French simulation centres which responded (2018 January), 27 organised sessions in anaesthesia and 22 used CAs.

Conclusion: CAs were better known in Canada than in France, but their actual use in real life was low in both countries. Simulation appears to play a potentially important role training anaesthesia providers in the use of CAs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
认知辅助工具的使用:来自法国和加拿大麻醉提供者的全国调查结果。
在关键事件中使用认知辅助(CAs)被认为是有用的。然而,法国和加拿大的麻醉提供者是否知道并使用ca尚不清楚。方法:2017年通过各自的国家协会向法国和加拿大的麻醉提供者发送电子邮件进行调查。它包括23个问题,涉及参与者的人口统计数据以及他们对ca的知识、使用和影响。第二次调查已送交法国模拟中心。结果:法国记录了912例应答,加拿大记录了278例应答(总应答率分别为7%和11%)。在应答者中,法国700/899人(78%)比加拿大249/273人(91%)熟悉危机期间认知功能障碍的概念,法国501/893人(56%)比加拿大250/271人(92%)知道ca的概念。在了解CA的受访者中,法国的189/492(38%)和加拿大的108/244(44%)表示他们已经在现实生活中使用过CA,法国的225/493(45%)和加拿大的126/245(51%)表示他们接受过使用CA的培训。模拟是法国150/225例(67%)的主要培训方式,而加拿大47/126例(37%)的主要培训方式。在回应的28/50个法国模拟中心(2018年1月)中,27个组织了麻醉会议,22个使用了CAs。结论:ca在加拿大的知名度高于法国,但它们在现实生活中的实际使用量在两国都很低。模拟似乎在培训麻醉提供者使用ca方面发挥着潜在的重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
29
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Efficacy of High-Volume Low-Concentration Intraperitoneal Bupivacaine Irrigation for Postoperative Analgesia in Patients Undergoing Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy: Bupivacaine Irrigation for Analgesia. Association Between MRI Findings of Facet Arthropathy and Synovitis With Health-Related Outcome and Pain Scores Following Therapeutic Lumbar Facet Injections. Use of a Nasal Cannula as a Preoxygenation Adjunct: A Randomized Crossover Study. Weight-Based Standardized Sugammadex Dosing in Pediatrics: A Quality Improvement Initiative to Improve Compliance with Dosing Guidelines and Reduce Waste and Cost. The Effect of Preoperative Anxiety on Motor and Sensory Block Duration and Effectiveness in Spinal Anesthesia.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1