The journal of education in perioperative medicine : JEPM最新文献

Background: Augmented reality (AR) and eye tracking are promising adjuncts for medical simulation, but they have remained distinct tools. The recently developed Chariot Augmented Reality Medical (CHARM) Simulator combines AR medical simulation with eye tracking. We present a novel approach to applying eye tracking within an AR simulation to assess anesthesiologists during an AR pediatric life support simulation. The primary aim was to explore clinician performance in the simulation. Secondary outcomes explored eye tracking as a measure of shockable rhythm recognition and participant satisfaction.

Methods: Anesthesiology residents, pediatric anesthesiology fellows, and attending pediatric anesthesiologists were recruited. Using CHARM, they participated in a pediatric crisis simulation. Performance was scored using the Anesthesia-centric Pediatric Advanced Life Support (A-PALS) scoring instrument, and eye tracking data were analyzed. The Simulation Design Scale measured participant satisfaction.

Results: Nine each of residents, fellows, and attendings participated for a total of 27. We were able to successfully progress participants through the AR simulation as demonstrated by typical A-PALS performance scores. We observed no differences in performance across training levels. Eye tracking data successfully allowed comparisons of time to rhythm recognition across training levels, revealing no differences. Finally, simulation satisfaction was high across all participants.

Conclusions: While the agreement between A-PALS score and gaze patterns is promising, further research is needed to fully demonstrate the use of AR eye tracking for medical training and assessment. Physicians of multiple training levels were satisfied with the technology.

Background: This study's primary aim was to determine how training programs use simulation-based medical education (SBME), because SBME is linked to superior clinical performance.

Methods: An anonymous 10-question survey was distributed to anesthesiology residency program directors across the United States. The survey aimed to assess where and how SBME takes place, which resources are available, frequency of and barriers to its use, and perceived utility of a dedicated departmental education laboratory.

Results: The survey response rate was 30.4% (45/148). SBME typically occurred at shared on-campus laboratories, with residents typically participating in SBME 1 to 4 times per year. Frequently practiced skills included airway management, trauma scenarios, nontechnical skills, and ultrasound techniques (all ≥ 77.8%). Frequently cited logistical barriers to simulation laboratory use included COVID-19 precautions (75.6%), scheduling (57.8%), and lack of trainers (48.9%). Several respondents also acknowledged financial barriers. Most respondents believed a dedicated departmental education laboratory would be a useful or very useful resource (77.8%).

Conclusion: SBME is a widely incorporated activity but may be impeded by barriers that our survey helped identify. Barriers can be addressed by departmental education laboratories. We discuss how such laboratories increase capabilities to support structured SBME events and how costs can be offset. Other academic departments may also benefit from establishing such laboratories.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 led to multiple changes in graduate medical education programs across the country, including the switch to virtual interviews for all residency applicants instead of on-site visits. The rapid transition to virtual interviews introduced challenges, including limited opportunities to formally and informally interact with residents and faculty, observe the clinical and educational environments, and explore the local culture and community. As a result, programs were advised to heavily invest in and create comprehensive digital resources including but not limited to video tours and multimedia resources describing programmatic details.

Methods: In preparation for the virtual interview season of 2020-2021, digital recruitment materials were created for the University of Nebraska Medical Center's Anesthesiology residency applicants to provide the information that they would traditionally receive during an in-person interview experience. The objectives of the study were (1) to assess which digital materials residency applicants accessed most frequently during the interview season, and (2) to determine if the digital materials were helpful for the residency applicant in best determining program fit as part of the interview process. A post-interview survey and user analytics were analyzed.

Results: With a survey response rate of 58% (n = 87 of 150) and a Web-based email-open rate of 98% (n =147 of 150), the data revealed that the favored digital materials were the "What Residents Say" video and the Residency Applicant Handbook. These were also the most helpful for the residency applicant in best determining program fit.

Conclusion: This study shows that resources that allowed students to better assess their "fit" in the program were highly accessed and valued, as were detailed descriptions of the clinical and educational aspects of the training program found in the resident handbook.

Background: The use of echocardiography to assess left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is an important component of anesthesiology resident education; however, there is no consensus on the most effective method for teaching this skill set. This study investigates the impact and feasibility of teaching a quantitative LVEF assessment method to anesthesiology residents, compared with teaching visual estimation techniques.

Methods: We included all anesthesiology residents rotating through cardiac anesthesia at our institution from August 2020 through March 2021. Participants completed a pretest to assess baseline ability to accurately estimate LVEF. All tests consisted of transthoracic echocardiography images with standard views from 10 patients. Participants were assigned to either a control group that received teaching on visual estimation of LVEF or an intervention group that was taught quantitative LVEF assessment with the Simpson biplane method of discs. After 4 weeks, all participants were administered a postteaching exam. A retention exam was administered an additional 4 weeks later. LVEF accuracy was measured as the absolute difference between their LVEF estimation and the reference value.

Results: Control and intervention groups performed similarly on the preteaching exam of LVEF estimation accuracy. Intervention-group residents demonstrated significantly improved accuracy in LVEF assessment on the postteaching exam (3.6% improvement in accuracy, confidence interval [CI], 1.23-5.97; P = .03) compared with the control group (0.60% improvement inaccuracy, CI, -1.77-2.97; P = .62). The observed improvement was not maintained through the retention exam.Conclusions: Addition of quantitative LVEF assessment to traditional teaching of visual LVEF estimation methods significantly improved the diagnostic accuracy of anesthesiology residents' left ventricular systolic function assessment.

Background: This study reviews and appraises the articles published about anesthesiology education in 2019. Through this critical appraisal, those interested in anesthesiology education are able to quickly review literature published during this year and explore innovative ways to improve education for all those involved in the practice of anesthesiology.

Methods: Three Ovid MEDLINE databases, Embase.com, ERIC, and PsycINFO were searched followed by a manual review of articles published in the highest impact factor journals in both the fields of anesthesiology and medical education. Abstracts were double-screened and quantitative articles were subsequently scored by 3 randomly assigned raters. Qualitative studies were scored by 2 raters. Two different rubrics were used for scoring quantitative and qualitative studies; both allowed for scores ranging from 1 to 25. In addition, reviewers rated each article on its overall quality to create an additional list of top articles based solely on the opinion of the reviewers.

Results: A total of 2374 unique citations were identified through the search criteria and the manual review. Of those, 70 articles met the inclusion criteria (62 quantitative and 8 qualitative). The top 12 quantitative papers and the top 2 qualitative papers with the highest scores were reported and summarized.Conclusions: This critical appraisal continues to be a useful tool for those working in anesthesiology education by highlighting the best research articles published over the year. Highlighting trends in medical education research in anesthesiology can help those in the field to think critically about the direction of this type of research.