Domains Influencing Faculty Decisions on the Level of Supervision Required for Anesthesiology EPAs with Analysis of Feedback Comments.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine responses related to entrustment and feedback comments from an assessment tool. DESIGN: Qualitative analyses using semi-structured interviews and analysis of narrative comments. SETTING: Main hospital OR suite at a large academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: faculty, and residents who work in the OR suite. RESULTS: Seven of the 14 theoretical domains from the Theoretical Domains Framework were identified as influencing faculty decision on entrustment: knowledge, skills, intention, memory/attention/decision processes, environmental context, and resources, beliefs of capabilities, and reinforcement. The majority (651/1116 (58.4%)) of faculty comments were critical/modest praise and relevant, consistent across all 6 EPAs. The written in feedback comments for all 1,116 Web App EPA assessments yielded a total of 1,599 sub-competency specific responses. These responses were mapped to core competencies, and at least once to 13 of the 23 ACGME subcompetencies. CONCLUSIONS: Domains identified as influencing faculty decision on entrustment were knowledge, skills, intention, memory/attention/decision processes, environmental context, and resources, beliefs of capabilities, and reinforcement. Most narrative feedback comments were critical/modest praise and relevant, consistent across each of the EPAs.

Comparing characteristics and perspectives of U.S. anesthesiology fellows in training and anesthesiologists in their first year of practice.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate relationships between demographics, professional characteristics, and perceived challenges facing the specialty of anesthesiology among physicians who entered a fellowship and those who started independent practice immediately after finishing a U.S. anesthesiology residency. METHODS: Anesthesiologists in the year after their residency graduation were invited to take an online survey during the academic years of 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019, with questions about their personal characteristics, the nature of their professional lives, and their perceptions of the greatest challenge facing the profession of anesthesiology. RESULTS: A total of 884 fellows-in-training and 735 anesthesiologists starting independent practice right after the completion of their residency responded. Fellows were slightly younger (mean = 33.2 vs. 34.0 years old, p < 0.001), were more likely to have a spouse who works outside the home (63.9% vs. 57.0%, p = 0.002), had fewer children (mean = 0.69 vs. 0.88, p < 0.001), worked more hours per week (mean = 56.2 vs. 52.4, p < 0.001), and were less likely to report a personal and professional life balance (66.4% vs. 72.3% positive, p = 0.005) than direct-entry anesthesiologists. Fellows and direct-entry anesthesiologists identified similar challenges in three broad themes - workforce competition (80.3% and 71.8%), healthcare system changes (30.0% and 37.9%), and personal challenges (6.4% and 8.8%). Employment security issues posed by non-physician anesthesia providers and perceived lack of appreciation of anesthesiologists' value were commonly cited. Relative weighting of challenge concerns varied between fellows and direct-entry physicians, as well as within these groups based on gender, fellowship subspecialty, location or size of practice, and frequency of supervisory roles. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology fellows and direct-entry anesthesiologists had largely similar demographics and perspectives on the challenges facing anesthesiology in the United States. Group differences found in some demographics and perspectives may reflect different motivations for choosing their professional paths and their diverse professional experiences.

Defining entrustable professional activities for first year anesthesiology residents: A Delphi study.

INTRODUCTION: The use of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) as a basis for assessment may bridge the gap between the theory of competency-based education and clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to develop and validate EPAs for United States (US) first-year clinical anesthesia (CA-1) residents for anesthesiology residency programs to use as the basis for curriculum development and workplace assessment. METHODS: From a list of EPAs abstracted from the literature, an expert panel through a modified Delphi consensus process established EPAs for the CA1 curriculum. RESULTS: The final list of EPAs after group consensus had 28 EPAs, with 14 (50%) considered to be applicable to the CA-1 year. An 80% consensus rate was used to accept or reject the final list. CONCLUSION: This study applied a construct validity lens to EPA development providing assurance that the EPAs adopted are appropriate for use in workplace-based assessment and entrustment decision-making.

Career decisions, training priorities, and perceived challenges for anesthesiology residents in the United States.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: This study sought to understand the timing and important factors identified by residents regarding their decision to pursue a career in anesthesiology, training areas deemed important to their future success, perceived greatest challenges facing the profession of anesthesiology, and their post-residency plans. DESIGN: The American Board of Anesthesiology administered voluntary, anonymous, repeated cross-sectional surveys to residents who began clinical anesthesia training in the U.S. from 2013 to 2016 and were subsequently followed up yearly until the completion of their residency. The analyses included data from 12 surveys (4 cohorts from clinical anesthesia years 1 to 3), including multiple-choice questions, rankings, Likert scales, and free text responses. Free responses were analyzed using an iterative inductive coding process to determine the main themes. MAIN RESULTS: The overall response rate was 36% (6480 responses to 17,793 invitations). Forty-five percent of residents chose anesthesiology during the 3rd year of medical school. "Nature of the clinical practice of anesthesiology" was the most important factor influencing their decision (average ranking of 5.93 out of 8 factors, 1 [least important] to 8 [most important]), followed by "ability to use pharmacology to acutely manipulate physiology" (5.75) and "favorable lifestyle" (5.22). "Practice management" and "political advocacy for anesthesiologists" (average rating 4.46 and 4.42, respectively, on a scale of 1 [very unimportant] to 5 [very important]) were considered the most important non-traditional training areas, followed by "anesthesiologists as leaders of the perioperative surgical home" (4.32), "structure and financing of the healthcare system" (4.27), and "principles of quality improvement" (4.26). Three out of 5 residents desired to pursue a fellowship; pain medicine, pediatric anesthesiology, and cardiac anesthesiology were the most popular choices, each accounting for approximately 20% of prospective fellows. Perceived greatest challenges facing the profession of anesthesiology included workforce competition from non-physician anesthesia providers and lack of advocacy for anesthesiologist values (referenced by 96% of respondents), changes and uncertainty in healthcare systems (30%), and personal challenges such as psychological well-being (3%). CONCLUSIONS: Most residents identified anesthesiology as their career choice during medical school. Interest in non-traditional subjects and fellowship training was common. Competition from non-physician providers, healthcare system changes, and compromised psychological well-being were perceived concerns.

Evaluation of the Stanford Anesthesiology Faculty Teaching Scholars Program Using the Context, Input, Process, and Product Framework.

Background: Faculty development programs are essential to the educational mission of academic medical centers as they promote skill development and career advancement and should be regularly evaluated to determine opportunities for improvement. The context, input, process, and product (CIPP) framework evaluates all phases of a program and focuses on improvement and outcomes. The aim of this study was to use the CIPP framework to evaluate the Stanford Anesthesiology Faculty Teaching Scholars Program. Methods: Using the CIPP framework, a survey was developed for alumni (2007 to 2018) of the program, followed by structured interviews, and each interview was deductively coded to identify themes. Results: Twenty-six of the 54 (48% response rate) participants in the program completed the survey, with 23 completing their projects and 17 of those projects still part of the anesthesiology training program. Seventeen survey responders went on to educational leadership roles. Twenty-five of the 26 survey responders would recommend this program to their colleagues. Fifteen structured interviews were conducted. Using the CIPP framework, themes were identified for context (reason for participation, previous experience in medical education, and resident education impact), input (benefits/negatives of the lecture series, availability of resources, and adequacy of nonclinical time), process (resident participation, mentorship, and barriers to implementation), and product (project completion, education sustainability, positive/negative outcomes of the program, and suggestions for improvement). Conclusions: The CIPP framework was successfully used to evaluate the Teaching Scholars Program. Areas of improvement were identified, including changing the program for input (add education lectures customized to faculty interests) and process (formally designate an experienced mentor to faculty).

Content Evaluation of Residency Websites for All 159 Anesthesiology ACGME Programs in the USA.

Background: The shift to virtual interviews during the COVID-19 pandemic has elevated the vital role of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education residency program websites in conveying information to applicants. The purpose of our study was to assess the recruitment, education, and diversity and inclusion content on websites for anesthesiology residency programs. Second, we aimed to test the hypothesis that the content scores of websites are higher in programs with more National Institutes of Health funding, in programs that are university-based versus community-based, and in larger programs, as measured by number of residents. Methods: Two independent reviewers evaluated the websites of the 159 anesthesiology residency programs accredited by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education for the presence (yes/no) of 12 recruitment, 6 education, and 8 diversity and inclusion criteria. Multiple linear regression was used to determine which program factors were most associated with total website content score. Results: Anesthesiology residency program websites contained a mean of 12.9 (SD = 3.4; range, 3-21) of the 26 study-defined criteria. The most common recruitment, education, and diversity and inclusion criteria were, respectively, program description, rotation information, and community demographics. Controlling for program factors, a university-based affiliation (P = .016) was associated with higher website content scores. Conclusions: There is large variation in the recruitment, education, and diversity and inclusion content on anesthesiology residency program websites nationally. Since program websites averaged only half of criteria, this may provide an impetus for programs to modify their websites, which may inform applicant decisions about which programs align with their training and career goals.

Residency program directors' perceptions about the impact of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To describe how the introduction of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) by the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) to its initial certification impacted anesthesiology residencies in the United States. DESIGN AND SETTING: A sequential mixed-methods design with focus groups and online survey among program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residencies. PATIENTS: No patients were included. INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS: A convenience sample of 34 program directors were interviewed to understand their perceptions of the ABA OSCE. Subsequently, an online survey, based on major themes identified from the focus groups, was sent to all 156 program directors. MAIN RESULTS: Several themes emerged from the focus group discussions: (1) a mock OSCE was most common for preparing residents for the ABA OSCE; 2) the ABA OSCE led to changes in residency curriculum; 3) the ABA OSCE assessed communication and professionalism skills well, and how well it assessed technical skills was less agreed on. Survey results from 87 program directors (response rate = 56%) were mostly consistent with the themes generated by the focus groups. Eight-one out of 87 programs (93%) specifically prepared their residents for the ABA OSCE. Fifty-two out of 81 program directors (64%) reported the introduction of the ABA OSCE led to curricular changes. Out of 79 program directors, 45 (57%) agreed the ABA OSCE assesses skills essential to anesthesiology practice, and 40 (51%) considered it added value to board certification. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of the OSCE by the ABA for board certification has affected the curriculum of many residencies. Approximately 3 in 5 program directors perceived the ABA OSCE measures skills essential to anesthesiologists' practice. Future studies should assess residency graduates' perspective on the usefulness of both mock OSCE preparation and the ABA OSCE, and whether the ABA OSCE performance predicts future clinical practice.

Anesthesiology Residents' Experiences and Perspectives of Residency Training.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiology residents' experiences and perspectives about their programs may be helpful in improving training. The goals of this repeated cross-sectional survey study are to determine: (1) the most important factors residents consider in choosing an anesthesiology residency, (2) the aspects of the clinical base year that best prepare residents for anesthesia clinical training, and what could be improved, (3) whether residents are satisfied with their anesthesiology residency and what their primary struggles are, and (4) whether residents believe their residency prepares them for proficiency in the 6 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Core Competencies and for independent practice. METHODS: Anesthesiologists beginning their US residency training from 2013 to 2016 were invited to participate in anonymous, confidential, and voluntary self-administered online surveys. Resident cohort was defined by clinical anesthesia year 1, such that 9 survey administrations were included in this study-3 surveys for the 2013 and 2014 cohorts (clinical anesthesia years 1-3), 2 surveys for the 2015 cohort (clinical anesthesia years 1-2), and 1 survey for the 2016 cohort (clinical anesthesia year 1). RESULTS: The overall response rate was 36% (4707 responses to 12,929 invitations). On a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as "very unimportant" and 5 as "very important," quality of clinical experience (4.7-4.8 among the cohorts) and departmental commitment to education (4.3-4.5) were rated as the most important factors in anesthesiologists' choice of residency. Approximately 70% of first- and second-year residents agreed that their clinical base year prepared them well for anesthesiology residency, particularly clinical training experiences in critical care rotations, anesthesiology rotations, and surgery rotations/perioperative procedure management. Overall, residents were satisfied with their choice of anesthesiology specialty (4.4-4.5 on a 5-point scale among cohort-training levels) and their residency programs (4.0-4.1). The residency training experiences mostly met their expectations (3.8-4.0). Senior residents who reported any struggles highlighted academic more than interpersonal or technical difficulties. Senior residents generally agreed that the residency adequately prepared them for independent practice (4.1-4.4). Of the 6 ACGME Core Competencies, residents had the highest confidence in professionalism (4.7-4.9) and interpersonal and communication skills (4.6-4.8). Areas in residency that could be improved include the provision of an appropriate balance between education and service and allowance for sufficient time off to search and interview for a postresidency position. CONCLUSIONS: Anesthesiology residents in the United States indicated they most value quality of clinical training experiences and are generally satisfied with their choice of specialty and residency program.

Demographic Trends From 2005 to 2015 Among Physicians With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-Accredited Anesthesiology Training and Active Medical Licenses.

BACKGROUND: A temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates that occurred around the turn of the millennium may have workforce implications. The aims of this study are to describe, between 2005 and 2015, (1) demographic changes in the workforce of physicians trained as anesthesiologists; (2) national and state densities of these physicians, as well as temporal changes in the densities; and (3) retention of medical licenses by mid- and later-career anesthesiologists. METHODS: Using records from the American Board of Anesthesiology and state medical and osteopathic boards, the numbers of licensed physicians aged 30-59 years who had completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency training were calculated cross-sectionally for 2005, 2010, and 2015. Demographic trends were then described. Census data were used to calculate national and state densities of licensed physicians. Individual longitudinal data were used to describe retention of medical licenses among older physicians. RESULTS: The number of licensed physicians trained as anesthesiologists aged 30-59 years increased from 32,644 in 2005 to 36,543 in 2010 and 36,624 in 2015, representing a national density of 1.10, 1.18, and 1.14 per 10,000 population in those years, respectively. The density of anesthesiologists among states ranged from 0.37 to 3.10 per 10,000 population. The age distribution differed across the years. For example, anesthesiologists aged 40-49 years predominated in 2005 (47%), but by 2015, only 31% of anesthesiologists were aged 40-49 years. The proportion of female anesthesiologists grew from 22% in 2005, to 24% in 2010, and to 28% in 2015, particularly among early-career anesthesiologists. For anesthesiologists with licenses in 2005, the number who still had active licenses in 2015 decreased by 9.6% for those aged 45-49 years, by 14.1% for those aged 50-54 years, and by 19.7% for those aged 55-59 years. CONCLUSIONS: The temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates around the turn of the 21st century decreased the proportion of anesthesiologists who were midcareer as of 2015. This may affect the future availability of senior leaders as well as the future overall workforce in the specialty as older anesthesiologists retire. National efforts to plan for workforce needs should recognize the geographical variability in the distribution of anesthesiologists.

Construct Validation of the American Board of Anesthesiology's APPLIED Examination for Initial Certification.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology administers the APPLIED Examination as a part of initial certification, which as of 2018 includes 2 components-the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE) and the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE). The goal of this study is to investigate the measurement construct(s) of the APPLIED Examination to assess whether the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs (ie, factors). METHODS: Exploratory item factor analysis of candidates' performance ratings was used to determine the number of constructs, and confirmatory item factor analysis to estimate factor loadings within each construct and correlation(s) between the constructs. RESULTS: In exploratory item factor analysis, the log-likelihood ratio test and Akaike information criterion index favored the 3-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE, OSCE Communication and Professionalism, and OSCE Technical Skills. The Bayesian information criterion index favored the 2-factor model, with factors reflecting the SOE and the OSCE. In confirmatory item factor analysis, both models suggest moderate correlation between the SOE factor and the OSCE factor; the correlation was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-0.55) for the 3-factor model and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.54-0.64) for the 2-factor model. The factor loadings were lower for Technical Skills stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.11 to 0.25) compared with those of the SOE and Communication and Professionalism stations of the OSCE (ranging from 0.36 to 0.50). CONCLUSIONS: The analyses provide evidence that the SOE and the OSCE measure distinct constructs, supporting the rationale for administering both components of the APPLIED Examination for initial certification in anesthesiology.

Milestone Learning Trajectories of Residents at Five Anesthesiology Residency Programs.

Construct: Every six months, residency programs report their trainees' Milestones Level achievement to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME). Milestones should enable the learner and training program to know an individual's competency development trajectory. Background: Milestone Level ratings for residents grouped by specialty (e.g., Internal Medicine and Emergency Medicine) show that, in aggregate, senior residents receive higher ratings than junior residents. Anesthesiology Milestones, as assessed by both residents and faculty, also have a positive linear relationship with postgraduate year. However, these studies have been cross-sectional rather than longitudinal cohort studies, and studies of how individual residents progress during the course of training are needed. Longitudinal data analysis of performance assessment trajectories addresses a relevant validity question for the Next Accreditation System. We explored the application of learning analytics to longitudinal Milestones data to: 1) measure the frequency of "straight-lining"; 2) assess the proportion of residents that reach "Level 4" (ready for unsupervised practice) by graduation for each subcompetency; 3) identify variability among programs and individual residents in their baseline Milestone Level and rates of improvement; and 4) determine how hypothetically constructed growth curve models fit to the Milestones data reported to ACGME. Approach: De-identified Milestone Level ratings in each of the 25 subcompetencies submitted semiannually to the ACGME from July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2017 were retrospectively analyzed for graduating residents (n = 67) from a convenience sample of five anesthesia residency programs. The data reflected longitudinal resident Milestone progression from the beginning of the first year to the end of the third and final year of clinical anesthesiology training. The frequency of straight-lining, defined as the resident receiving the same exact Milestone Level rating for all 25 subcompetencies on a given 6-month report, was calculated for each program. Every resident was evaluated six times during training with the possibility of six straight-lined ratings. Findings: The number of residents in each program ranged from 5-21 (Median 13, range 16). Mean Milestone Level ratings for subcompetencies were significantly different at each six-month assessment (p < 0.001). Frequency of straight-lining varied significantly by program from 9% - 57% (Median 22%). Depending on the program, 53%-100% (median 86%) of residents reached the graduation target Level 4 or higher in all 25 anesthesiology subcompetencies. Nine to 18% of residents did not achieve a Level 4 rating for at least one subcompetency at any time during their residency. Across programs, significant variability was found in first-year clinical anesthesia training Milestone Levels, as well in the rate of improvement for five of the six core competencies. Conclusions: Anesthesia residents' Milestone Level growth trajectories as reported to the ACGME vary significantly across individual residents as well as by program. The present study offers a case example that raises concerns regarding the validity of the Next Accreditation System as it is currently used by some residency programs.

Red Flags, Geography, Exam Scores, and Other Factors Used by Program Directors in Determining Which Applicants Are Offered an Interview for Anesthesiology Residency.

Objective The goal of this study was to measure the most important factors in candidate applications that anesthesiology program directors (PDs) use to decide who to invite for an interview, and how that might change once the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 is only reported as pass/fail. Design Based on a literature review, a comprehensive list of 27 factors used by PDs to select candidates for the interview was developed. An anonymous survey link was emailed to PDs of all Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited Anesthesiology residencies. The survey asked PDs to rank order the top 10 factors they currently consider for making interview invitation, and then to repeat the rank ordering as if the USMLE Step 1 score was instead reported as pass/fail as will be done beginning in 2022. Results Forty-five of 159 (28%) PDs responded, with 82% disagreeing with changing the Step 1 score to pass/fail. 84% consider the Step 1 score (77% for Step 2) moderately or very important for selecting an applicant for an interview. The most frequently mentioned "red flags" were failure of a licensing exam, failure of a medical school course, gaps in education without explanation, and criminal history. 69% of PDs agreed that applicants coming from the medical school affiliated with their program would have an advantage over other applicants. Although, the three factors most commonly ranked in the top 10 in importance were the Step 1 score, followed by letters of recommendation, and then the Medical School Performance Evaluation, variability exists in how PDs ranked factors. For example, of the PDs that had Step 1 in the top 10, 27% had it ranked between the 6th and 10th most important. 9% of PDs did not have Step 1 score in the top 10. Core clinical clerkship grades were one of the top 5 factors by 49% of PDs, yet overall was the 6th most common top 10 factor as 36% of PDs did not have core clerkship grades at all in the top 10. Once Step 1 is reported only as pass/fail, PDs had letters of recommendation, Step 2, and the Medical School Performance Evaluation as the most frequently ranked factors in the top 10. 64% of the PDs supported restricting the number of programs a candidate can apply to, with the majority suggesting a limit of 15 to 20 programs per applicant. Conclusion Variability exists among anesthesiology PDs in the key criteria for offering an applicant an interview. Once Step 1 is reported as pass/fail, there will be an increased emphasis on Step 2 scores.

First-Year Results of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination for Initial Certification.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA's staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30-0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE (r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25-0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE (r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

Barriers and aids to routine neuromuscular monitoring and consistent reversal practice-A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Neuromuscular monitoring is recommended whenever a neuromuscular blocking agent is administered, but surveys have demonstrated inconsistent monitoring practices. Using qualitative methods, we aimed to explore barriers and aids to routine neuromuscular monitoring and consistent reversal practice. METHODS: Focus group interviews were conducted to obtain insights into the thoughts and attitudes of individual anaesthetists, as well as the influence of colleagues and department culture. Interviews were conducted at five Danish and one US hospital. Data were analysed using template analysis. RESULTS: Danish anaesthetists used objective neuromuscular monitoring when administering a non-depolarizing relaxant, but had challenges with calibrating the monitor and sometimes interpreting measurements. Residents from the US institution used subjective neuromuscular monitoring, objective neuromuscular monitoring was generally not available and most had not used it. Danish anaesthetists used neuromuscular monitoring to assess readiness for extubation, whereas US residents used subjective neuromuscular monitoring, clinical tests like 5-second head lift and ventilatory parameters. The residents described a lack of consensus between senior anaesthesiologists in reversal practice and monitoring use. Barriers to consistent and correct neuromuscular monitoring identified included unreliable equipment, time pressure, need for training, misconceptions about pharmacokinetics of neuromuscular blocking agents and residual block, lack of standards and guidelines and departmental culture. CONCLUSION: Using qualitative methods, we found that though Danish anaesthetists generally apply objective neuromuscular monitoring routinely and residents at the US institution often apply subjective neuromuscular monitoring, barriers to consistent and correct use still exist.