Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Mais filtros








Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Anesthesiology ; 125(1): 221-9, 2016 Jul.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27119434

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: This multicenter, retrospective study was conducted to determine how resident performance deficiencies affect graduation and board certification. METHODS: Primary documents pertaining to resident performance were examined over a 10-yr period at four academic anesthesiology residencies. Residents entering training between 2000 and 2009 were included, with follow-up through February 2016. Residents receiving actions by the programs' Clinical Competency Committee were categorized by the area of deficiency and compared to peers without deficiencies. RESULTS: A total of 865 residents were studied (range: 127 to 275 per program). Of these, 215 residents received a total of 405 actions from their respective Clinical Competency Committee. Among those who received an action compared to those who did not, the proportion graduating differed (93 vs. 99%, respectively, P < 0.001), as did the proportion achieving board certification (89 vs. 99%, respectively, P < 0.001). When a single deficiency in an Essential Attribute (e.g., ethical, honest, respectful behavior; absence of impairment) was identified, the proportion graduating dropped to 55%. When more than three Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education Core Competencies were deficient, the proportion graduating also dropped significantly. CONCLUSIONS: Overall graduation and board certification rates were consistently high in residents with no, or isolated, deficiencies. Residents deficient in an Essential Attribute, or multiple competencies, are at high risk of not graduating or achieving board certification. More research is needed on the effectiveness and selective deployment of remediation efforts, particularly for high-risk groups.


Assuntos
Anestesiologia/educação , Anestesiologia/normas , Internato e Residência/normas , Acreditação , Certificação , Competência Clínica , Comunicação , Educação de Pós-Graduação em Medicina/normas , Avaliação Educacional , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Humanos , Papel Profissional , Estudos Retrospectivos
2.
J Clin Anesth ; 18(2): 114-7, 2006 Mar.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16563328

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine the efficacy and safety of sedation/analgesia using a mixture of propofol, alfentanil, and lidocaine. DESIGN: A retrospective case review was undertaken. SETTING: This study took place at a university medical center. PATIENTS: Eighty-nine American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status 1, 2, and 3 adult patients undergoing ophthalmic surgery with regional block and monitored anesthesia care were studied. INTERVENTION: Six milliliters of propofol, 2 mL of alfentanil, and 2 mL of 2% lidocaine (6-2-2 mixture) were freshly mixed. The bolus dose was determined based on the patients' age: 5 microg/kg of alfentanil (and 0.3 mg/kg of propofol) for patients older than 75 years; the dose increased 1 mug/kg per 10-year decrease in age; and up to 9 microg/kg of alfentanil (0.54 mg/kg of propofol) for patients younger than 45 years. Regional block was performed at 1 minute after bolus completion. Blood pressure (BP), Sa(O2), electrocardiogram, capnography, clinical signs of sedation, responses to block, need for airway support, nausea and vomiting (N/V), pain due to propofol infusion, recall, and patient and surgeon satisfaction were recorded. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Seventy-eight percent of patients achieved analgesia and sedation without adverse response to the block. Twelve percent achieved good analgesia and sedation with only eyebrow movement upon needle insertion. Twenty-seven percent had respiratory depression but were able to follow commands and maintain adequate ventilation. Two percent had brief apnea alleviated by chin lift or jaw thrust. None had pain because of propofol infusion or N/V. Before sedation, average systolic BP was significantly increased (P < 0.0001) compared with baseline. After sedation and block, systolic BP decreased 6% from baseline (P < 0.005). CONCLUSION: Adjusted for age and weight, the dose of the 6-2-2 mixture met the sedation requirements for most patients. With a low incidence of need for airway support, no pain during infusion, and no N/V, this novel mixture of propofol, alfentanil, and lidocaine provided adequate analgesia and sedation as well as hemodynamic stability for ophthalmic surgery under regional block.


Assuntos
Alfentanil , Anestesia por Condução , Anestésicos Intravenosos , Anestésicos Locais , Lidocaína , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Oftalmológicos , Propofol , Adulto , Idoso , Idoso de 80 Anos ou mais , Alfentanil/efeitos adversos , Anestesia por Condução/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Intravenosos/efeitos adversos , Anestésicos Locais/efeitos adversos , Pressão Sanguínea/efeitos dos fármacos , Feminino , Humanos , Complicações Intraoperatórias/epidemiologia , Lidocaína/efeitos adversos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Monitorização Intraoperatória , Propofol/efeitos adversos , Estudos Retrospectivos
3.
J Clin Anesth ; 16(1): 34-9, 2004 Feb.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-14984857

RESUMO

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency of postoperative emetic symptoms and side effects in pediatric strabismus surgery using four doses of droperidol. DESIGN: Randomized, blinded study. SETTING: University eye institute. PATIENTS: 82 ASA physical status I and II pediatric patients, aged 1 to 16 years, undergoing outpatient strabismus surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to one of four doses of droperidol (10, 20, 40, or 80 microg.kg(-1)) (Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively). All patients received the same anesthetic management, with droperidol administered intravenously immediately after induction of anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Postoperatively, patients were evaluated for emetic symptoms (nausea, retching, and/or vomiting) and side effects (postoperative sedation or extrapyramidal symptoms). There was a dose-dependent reduction of emetic symptoms seen with increasing droperidol dose. Predischarge emetic symptoms were 50%, 15%, 15%, and 5% in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (p < 0.009). Peak emetic symptoms were observed after discharge: 75%, 40%, 35%, and 15% in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (p < 0.003). Convalescence times, including awakening, extubation, recovery, and hospitalization, were unaffected by increasing droperidol dose. Sedation was similar in all groups and no patient exhibited any side effects. However, when patients exhibited emetic symptoms, discharge time increased from 207 +/- 57 minutes to 283 +/- 128 minutes (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic administration of droperidol 80 microg.kg(-1) is most effective in reducing postoperative emetic symptoms without increasing time to discharge. In those patients with emetic symptoms who also received prophylactic droperidol, time to discharge was significantly delayed.


Assuntos
Antieméticos/administração & dosagem , Droperidol/administração & dosagem , Náusea e Vômito Pós-Operatórios/prevenção & controle , Estrabismo/cirurgia , Adolescente , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Ambulatórios , Antieméticos/efeitos adversos , Criança , Pré-Escolar , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Método Duplo-Cego , Droperidol/efeitos adversos , Feminino , Humanos , Lactente , Tempo de Internação , Masculino
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA