-
Anaesthesia Dec 2009
Topics: Anesthesiology; Attitude to Health; History, 21st Century; Periodicals as Topic; Prejudice; Publishing; State Medicine; United Kingdom
PubMed: 20092509
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2044.2009.06164.x -
Anesthesiology Jun 2023
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesiology
PubMed: 37158651
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000004565 -
Anesthesiology May 2001
Topics: Anesthesiology; History of Medicine; History, 20th Century; Humans; Specialization; United States; Warfare
PubMed: 11388518
DOI: 10.1097/00000542-200105000-00005 -
Anaesthesia Jun 2017
Topics: Anesthesiology; Cost-Benefit Analysis; Developing Countries; Humans; Malawi; Oximetry
PubMed: 28439874
DOI: 10.1111/anae.13897 -
Anesthesiology Dec 2012
Topics: Anesthesia, Inhalation; Anesthesiology; History, 20th Century; Humans; Nebulizers and Vaporizers
PubMed: 23168424
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31827ce15a -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Jul 2010Simulation is an accepted part of training, assessment, and research in aviation, nuclear power, and the military. Confidence in results in these industries is... (Review)
Review
Simulation is an accepted part of training, assessment, and research in aviation, nuclear power, and the military. Confidence in results in these industries is underpinned by relatively comprehensive and widely accepted standards. In contrast, although there have been major advances in the technology and tools used for simulation in the healthcare industry over the last few decades, little work has been done in setting standards for simulation in healthcare. Standards are essential for achieving the full potential of simulation-based education, assessment, and research at all levels and specialities in healthcare. The absence of standards undermines confidence in the results of any simulation-based endeavour and increases the risk of negative learning. We propose a practical framework for setting standards for simulators for anaesthesia.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Computer Simulation; Education, Medical, Graduate; Educational Measurement; Humans; Patient Simulation
PubMed: 20507857
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aeq095 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Nov 2020Reliable, high-quality research is essential to the field of anaesthesiology. Reproducibility and transparency have been investigated in the biomedical domain and in the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Reliable, high-quality research is essential to the field of anaesthesiology. Reproducibility and transparency have been investigated in the biomedical domain and in the social sciences, with both lacking to provide necessary information to reproduce the study findings. In this study, we investigated 14 indicators of reproducibility in anaesthesiology research.
METHODS
We used the National Library of Medicine catalogue to search for all anaesthesiology journals that are MEDLINE indexed and provide English texts. PubMed was searched with the list of journals to identify all publications from January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2018. We randomly sampled 450 publications that fit the inclusion criteria for our analysis. Data extraction was then conducted in a blinded, duplicate fashion using a pilot-tested Google form.
RESULTS
The PubMed search of these journals identified 171 441 publications, with 28 310 being within the time frame. From the 450 publications sampled, 444 full-text publications were accessible. The majority of publications analysed did not have a statement regarding availability of data (164/188), analysis scripts (187/188), or study materials (160/188).
CONCLUSIONS
Anaesthesiology research needs to improve indicators of reproducibility and transparency. By making research publicly available and improving accessibility to detailed study components, primary research can be reproduced in subsequent studies and help contribute to the development of new practice guidelines.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Animals; Cross-Sectional Studies; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; PubMed; Reproducibility of Results; Research
PubMed: 32611528
DOI: 10.1016/j.bja.2020.03.035 -
World Journal of Surgery May 2016Globally, an estimated 2 billion people lack access to surgical and anesthesia care. We sought to pool results of anesthesia care capacity assessments in low- and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Globally, an estimated 2 billion people lack access to surgical and anesthesia care. We sought to pool results of anesthesia care capacity assessments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) to identify patterns of deficits and provide useful targets for advocacy and intervention.
METHODS
A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Google Scholar identified reports that documented anesthesia care capacity from LMICs. When multiple assessments from one country were identified, only the study with the most facilities assessed was included. Patterns of availability or deficit were described.
RESULTS
We identified 22 LMICs (15 low- and 8 middle-income countries) with anesthesia care capacity assessments (614 facilities assessed). Anesthesia care resources were often unavailable, including relatively low-cost ones (e.g., oxygen and airway supplies). Capacity varied markedly between and within countries, regardless of the national income. The availability of fundamental resources for safe anesthesia, such as airway supplies and functional pulse oximeters, was often not reported (72 and 36 % of hospitals assessed, respectively). Anesthesia machines and the capability to perform general anesthesia were unavailable in 43 % (132/307 hospitals) and 56 % (202/361) of hospitals, respectively.
CONCLUSION
We identified a pattern of critical deficiencies in anesthesia care capacity in LMICs, including some low-cost, high-value added resources. The global health community should advocate for improvements in anesthesia care capacity and the potential benefits of doing so to health system planners. In addition, better quality data on anesthesia care capacity can improve advocacy, as well as the monitoring and evaluation of changes over time and the impact of capacity improvement interventions.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Developing Countries; Health Facilities; Health Resources; Humans; Needs Assessment
PubMed: 26822158
DOI: 10.1007/s00268-016-3430-4 -
British Journal of Anaesthesia Feb 2014Simulation has long been integrated in anaesthesiology training, yet a comprehensive review of its effectiveness is presently lacking. Using meta-analysis and critical... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Simulation has long been integrated in anaesthesiology training, yet a comprehensive review of its effectiveness is presently lacking. Using meta-analysis and critical narrative analysis, we synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of simulation-based anaesthesiology training. We searched MEDLINE, ERIC, and SCOPUS through May 2011 and included studies using simulation to train health professional learners. Data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. We included 77 studies (6066 participants). Compared with no intervention (52 studies), simulation was associated with moderate to large pooled effect sizes (ESs) for all outcomes (ES range 0.60-1.05) except for patient effects (ES -0.39). Compared with non-simulation instruction (11 studies), simulation was associated with moderate effects for satisfaction and skills (ES 0.39 and 0.42, respectively), large effect for behaviours (1.77), and small effects for time, knowledge, and patient effects (-0.18 to 0.23). In 17 studies comparing alternative simulation interventions, training in non-technical skills (e.g. communication) and medical management compared with training in medical management alone was associated with negligible effects for knowledge and skills (four studies, ES range 0.14-0.15). Debriefing using multiple vs single information sources was associated with negligible effects for time and skills (three studies, ES range -0.07 to 0.09). Our critical analysis showed inconsistency in measurement of non-technical skills and consistency in the (ineffective) design of debriefing. Simulation in anaesthesiology appears to be more effective than no intervention (except for patient outcomes) and non-inferior to non-simulation instruction. Few studies have clarified the key instructional designs for simulation-based anaesthesiology training.
Topics: Anesthesiology; Computer Simulation; Education, Medical; Humans
PubMed: 24368556
DOI: 10.1093/bja/aet414 -
Anaesthesia Oct 2021
Review
Topics: Anesthesia; Anesthesiology; Humans; Perioperative Care
PubMed: 34333762
DOI: 10.1111/anae.15552