Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie最新文献

Purpose: Simulation-based medical education (SBME) is provided by all anesthesiology residency programs in Canada. The purpose of this study was to characterize SBME in Canadian anesthesiology residency training programs.

Methods: We administered a 21-question survey to the simulation director/coordinator for all 17 Canadian academic departments of anesthesiology from October 2019 to January 2020. The survey consisted of questions pertaining to the characteristics of the simulation centres, their faculty, learners, curriculum, and assessment processes.

Results: All 17 residency training programs participated in the survey and reported large variability in the number and formal training of simulation faculty and in content delivery. Five programs (29%) did not provide faculty recognition for curriculum design and running simulation sessions. Most programs offered one to four simulation sessions per academic year for each year of residency. All programs offered mannequin-based and part-task trainers for teaching technical and nontechnical skills. Fourteen programs (82%) offered interprofessional and interdisciplinary simulation sessions, and ten programs (59%) did not include in situ simulation training. Commonly reported barriers to faculty involvement were lack of protected time (12 programs, 71%), lack of financial compensation (ten programs, 59%), and lack of appreciation for SBME (seven programs, 41%).

Conclusion: Large variability exists in the delivery of SBME in Canadian anesthesiology residency simulation programs, in part because of differences in financial/human resources and educational content. Future studies should explore whether training and patient outcomes differ between SBME programs and, if so, whether additional standardization is warranted.

Human resources are essential to the safe and effective functioning of any health care system. Pressure on the health care workforce is of active global concern. There appears to be an anesthesia service delivery crisis in Canada. Recent media headlines have featured vacant physician anesthesiologist positions, closure of maternity units, and postponement of elective surgeries because of a shortage of anesthesiologists. This shortage is most serious in rural and remote communities. This has prompted the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society to publish a position statement on "Strategies to Address the Surgical Backlog and Health Human Resource Issues in Anesthesia."In this article, we discuss the composition and organization of the anesthesia workforce in Canada. We compare the Canadian anesthesia workforce to other Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries. We contend that the current anesthesia provision model in Canada is not meeting population needs and outline potential solutions to the anesthesia human resources crisis. These include increasing the numbers of anesthesiologists in training, encouraging international medical graduates to migrate to Canada, and various different approaches to task shifting and task sharing.

Purpose: While there is limited patient-centred evidence (i.e., evidence that is important for patients and end-users) to inform the use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies (i.e., the use of opioid alternatives) for adult surgical patients requiring general anesthesia, such strategies are increasingly being adopted into practice. Our objectives were to describe anesthesiologists' beliefs regarding intraoperative opioid minimizing strategies use and utility, and to explore important clinical decision-making factors.

Methods: We conducted a pan-Canadian web-based survey of anesthesiologists that was distributed using a modified Dillman technique. Our multidisciplinary team, including a patient partners panel, participated in the process of domains and items generation, items reduction, formatting, and composition. Our sampling frames were members of the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society and members of the Association des Anesthésiologistes du Québec. We used the newsletters of each organization to distribute our survey, which was available in English and French and housed on the LimeSurvey (LimeSurvey GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) platform.

Results: From our eligible sampling frame, 18% completed the survey (356 respondents out of 2,008 eligible participants). Most of the respondents believed that using opioid minimization strategies during general anesthesia could improve postoperative clinical outcomes, including pain control (84% agree or strongly agree, n = 344/409). Reported use of pharmacologic opioid minimization strategies was variable; however, most respondents believed that nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, acetaminophen, N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists (ketamine), α₂-adrenoceptor agonists (dexmedetomidine), corticosteroids, and intravenous lidocaine improve prostoperative clinical outcomes. The primary factors guiding decision-making regarding the use of opioid minimization strategies were postoperative acute pain intensity, the impact of acute pain on functioning, patient well-being (i.e., quality of recovery) and patient satisfaction with care. A lack of evidence was the most important barrier limiting the use of opioid minimization strategies.

Conclusion: In our survey of Canadian anesthesiologists, several opioid minimization strategies were believed to be effective complements to general anesthesia, although there was substantial variation in their reported use. Future randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of opioid minimization strategies should prioritize patient-centred outcome measures assessment such as the quality of recovery or the impact of acute pain on functioning.

Purpose: Surgical patient optimization is a proactive approach to improve postoperative outcomes. This article reviews the development of the Surgical Patient Optimization Collaborative, an initiative supporting preoperative optimization in British Columbia, Canada.

Methods: The Collaborative facilitated optimization programs over two cohorts between 2019 and 2024. A "Change Package" offered screening, intervention, and measurement tools for the following 13 surgical risk factors: anemia, anxiety, body mass index (cohort 2 only), cardiac status, frailty, glycemic control, nutrition, sleep apnea, pain management, physical activity, smoking, social support, substance use, and venous thromboembolism (cohort 1 only). Monthly data submissions from participating sites included the number of patients undergoing optimization, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-defined 30-day outcomes, length of stay, and patient-reported measures. Run charts were used to analyze the progress of optimization implementation across both cohorts.

Results: Fourteen sites participated in each cohort. In total, 9,686 patients were screened for optimization, with 7,100/7,505 (95%) patients receiving at least one optimization intervention. Improvement shifts in the number of patients screened were identified in the run charts across both cohorts. Most patients felt that their optimization improved their surgical experience and outcomes. Data for clinical outcomes were inconsistently reported from sites and precluded analyses. Barriers to implementation included project complexity and structural characteristics, and facilitators were knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, reflection, and evaluation.

Conclusion: Preoperative optimization programs were successfully implemented across multiple sites in British Columbia. High-quality clinical outcome analyses are still needed to determine the impact of preoperative optimization on postoperative outcomes. The insight gained from the Collaborative's implementation process may help inform future multicentre preoperative optimization efforts.