RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The utility of simulated mortality remains controversial in the literature. We therefore sought primarily to determine whether there was a difference in performance for residents exposed to varying levels of simulated mortality during training scenarios. As a secondary objective, we also sought to determine whether their self-reported anxiety levels, attitudes toward, and engagement in the simulated encounters differed based on group assignment. METHODS: Fifty junior anesthesiology residents were randomized to one of the three simulation cohorts. The residents were broken into groups that either always experienced simulated patient survival (never death), always experienced simulated mortality (always death), or had a variable result based on performance (variable death). All residents experienced 12 identical training simulations with only the predetermined outcome as the variable. Residents were brought back 6 weeks after initial training for four assessment scenarios and subsequently rated on nontechnical skills and anxiety levels. RESULTS: Residents in the always and never death groups showed no difference in nontechnical skills using the Anesthetists' Nontechnical Skills Score before and after the simulations. Residents in the variable death group, however, had improved nontechnical skill scores when brought back for the assessment (45.2 vs 41.5 and 42.9 respectively, P = 0.01). Although all three groups had higher State-Trait Anxiety Index scores from baseline after training, only the always death group had higher anxiety scores during the assessment (43 vs 37 vs 37 P = 0.008). CONCLUSIONS: We found that participants who experienced simulated mortality that was variably delivered, and more directly related to performance, performed better on later assessment scenarios.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: Despite our considerable experience with the problem of addiction in our specialty, most anesthesia care providers don't know how to identify or help an impaired colleague. The purpose of this article to provide sufficient information on substance use disorder (SUD) to aid in its identification amongst colleagues and to assist in its management. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Depending on the region, 10-15% of the general population is prone to developing a SUD and will abuse drugs or alcohol at some point in their life. Physicians and other healthcare professionals are not immune to the disease of addiction and are just as prone to developing SUD as laypersons. Even so, the risk of mortality is significantly increased because of access to potent and highly addictive anesthetic agents with a narrow therapeutic index when self-administered. Also, the number of anesthesia residents who are identified as having SUD is currently increasing. CONCLUSIONS: Due to the considerable morbidity and mortality associated with the abuse of anesthetic agents as well as the continuous increase in the rate of substance abuse by anesthesia providers, it is essential for anesthesia care providers to become familiar with the presenting signs and symptoms of substance abuse and impairment.

Asunto(s)

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Established models for assessment and maintenance of competency in anesthesiology may not be adequate for anesthesiologists wishing to reenter practice. The authors describe a program developed in their institution incorporating simulator-based education, to help determine competency in licensed and previously licensed anesthesiologists before return to practice. METHODS: The authors have used simulation for assessment and retraining at their institution since 2002. Physicians evaluated by the authors' center undergo an adaptable 2-day simulation-based assessment conducted by two board-certified anesthesiologists. A minimum of three cases are presented on each day, with specific core competencies assessed, and participants complete a standard Clinical Anesthesia Year 3 level anesthesia knowledge test. Participants are debriefed extensively and retraining regimens are designed, where indicated, consisting of a combination of simulation and operating-room observership. RESULTS: Twenty anesthesiologists were referred to the authors' institution between 2002 and 2012. Fourteen participants (70%) were in active clinical practice 1 yr after participation in the authors' program, five (25%) were in supervised positions, and nine (45%) had resumed independent clinical practice. The reasons of participants not in practice were personal (1 participant) and medico-legal (3 participants); two participants were lost to follow-up. Two of 14 physicians, who were formally assessed in the authors' program, were deemed likely unfit for safe return to practice, irrespective of further training. These physicians were unavailable for contact 1 yr after assessment. CONCLUSION: Anesthesiologists seeking to return to active clinical status are a heterogeneous group. The simulated environment provides an effective means by which to assess baseline competency and also a way to retrain physicians.

Asunto(s)