Cost of Training Crisis: Anaesthetics.

The anaesthetic training programme in the United Kingdom (UK) spans over seven years and is overseen by the Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCOA). Junior doctors in England are currently striking amid ongoing pay negotiations with the government, and almost all junior doctors are worried about the cost of living. This article provides an overview of the average financial cost of training for doctors in the anaesthetic training programme. The cost incurred by anaesthetic trainees illustrates the level of financial burden faced by trainees across multiple specialities. The cost includes: student loan repayment (with interest rates), compulsory membership fees (including the Royal College of Anaesthetists and General Medical Council), postgraduate examinations (Fellowship of the Royal College of Anaesthetist exams are compulsory to complete training) and medical indemnity. The average trainee spends between 5.6% and 7.4% of their annual salary on non-reimbursable costs. This article delineates for aforementioned expenses and compares them with the training programs in Australia and New Zealand, given their status as frequent emigration destinations for UK doctors.

[ChatGPT for use in technology-enhanced learning in anesthesiology and emergency medicine and potential clinical application of AI language models : Between hype and reality around artificial intelligence in medical use]. / ChatGPT im Einsatz für "technology-enhanced learning" in Anästhesiologie und Notfallmedizin und potenzielle klinische Anwendung von KI­Sprachmodellen : Zwischen Hype und Wirklichkeit um künstliche Intelligenz im medizinischen Einsatz.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of AI language models in education and academia is currently a subject of research, and applications in clinical settings are also being tested. Studies conducted by various research groups have demonstrated that language models can answer questions related to medical board examinations, and there are potential applications of these models in medical education as well. RESEARCH QUESTION: This study aims to investigate the extent to which current version language models prove effective for addressing medical inquiries, their potential utility in medical education, and the challenges that still exist in the functioning of AI language models. METHOD: The program ChatGPT, based on GPT 3.5, had to answer 1025 questions from the second part (M2) of the medical board examination. The study examined whether any errors and what types of errors occurred. Additionally, the language model was asked to generate essays on the learning objectives outlined in the standard curriculum for specialist training in anesthesiology and the supplementary qualification in emergency medicine. These essays were analyzed afterwards and checked for errors and anomalies. RESULTS: The findings indicated that ChatGPT was able to correctly answer the questions with an accuracy rate exceeding 69%, even when the questions included references to visual aids. This represented an improvement in the accuracy of answering board examination questions compared to a study conducted in March; however, when it came to generating essays a high error rate was observed. DISCUSSION: Considering the current pace of ongoing improvements in AI language models, widespread clinical implementation, especially in emergency departments as well as emergency and intensive care medicine with the assistance of medical trainees, is a plausible scenario. These models can provide insights to support medical professionals in their work, without relying solely on the language model. Although the use of these models in education holds promise, it currently requires a significant amount of supervision. Due to hallucinations caused by inadequate training environments for the language model, the generated texts might deviate from the current state of scientific knowledge. Direct deployment in patient care settings without permanent physician supervision does not yet appear to be achievable at present.

[Preoperative evaluation of adult patients before elective, non-cardiothoracic surgery : A joint recommendation of the German Society for Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, the German Society for Surgery and the German Society for Internal Medicine]. / Präoperative Evaluation erwachsener Patientinnen und Patienten vor elektiven, nicht herz-thoraxchirurgischen Eingriffen : Eine gemeinsame Empfehlung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Anästhesiologie und Intensivmedizin, der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Chirurgie und der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Innere Medizin.

The 70 recommendations summarize the current status of preoperative risk evaluation of adult patients prior to elective non-cardiothoracic surgery. Based on the joint publications of the German scientific societies for anesthesiology and intensive care medicine (DGAI), surgery (DGCH), and internal medicine (DGIM), which were first published in 2010 and updated in 2017, as well as the European guideline on preoperative cardiac risk evaluation published in 2022, a comprehensive re-evaluation of the recommendation takes place, taking into account new findings, the current literature, and current guidelines of international professional societies. The revised multidisciplinary recommendation is intended to facilitate a structured and common approach to the preoperative evaluation of patients. The aim is to ensure individualized preparation for the patient prior to surgery and thus to increase patient safety. Taking into account intervention- and patient-specific factors, which are indispensable in the preoperative risk evaluation, the perioperative risk for the patient should be minimized and safety increased. The recommendations for action are summarized under "General Principles (A)," "Advanced Diagnostics (B)," and the "Preoperative Management of Continuous Medication (C)." For the first time, a rating of the individual measures with regard to their clinical relevance has been given in the present recommendation. A joint and transparent agreement is intended to ensure a high level of patient orientation while avoiding unnecessary preliminary examinations, to shorten preoperative examination procedures, and ultimately to save costs. The joint recommendation of DGAI, DGCH and DGIM reflects the current state of knowledge as well as the opinion of experts. The recommendation does not replace the individualized decision between patient and physician about the best preoperative strategy and treatment.

Differences between resident self-assessments and faculty- assessments on Anesthesiology Milestones and associated factors: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate self-assessment is crucial for the professional development of physicians. There has been sparse data on the accuracy of self-assessments on Anesthesiology Milestones. The aim of this study was to investigate the differences between resident self-assessments and faculty-assessments on Anesthesiology Milestones and the associated factors. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted in a general tertiary university-affiliated hospital. We included anesthesia residents who were enrolled in the standardized residency training program in postgraduate year two and three at the time of the Milestone evaluation. We requested evaluations of competencies from both the Clinical Competency Committee faculty and the anesthesia residents themselves, utilizing the Chinese version of Anesthesiology Milestones in January 2023 and January 2024. The primary outcome was the differences between self- and faculty-assessments, calculated by subtracting the faculty-rated score from the self-rated score on each subcompetency. RESULTS: A total of 46 and 42 residents were evaluated in year 2023 and 2024, respectively. The self-rated sum score was significantly higher than that rated by faculty [mean (standardized deviation): 120.39 (32.41) vs. 114.44 (23.71), P = 0.008 in paired t test] with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.55 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.31 to 0.70]. The Bland-Altman plots revealed significant overestimation in patient care (bias 0.32, 95% CI: 0.05 to 0.60), practice-based learning and improvement (bias 0.45, 95% CI: 0.07 to 0.84), and professionalism (bias 0.37, 95% CI: 0.02 to 0.72). Ratings from residents with master's degrees (mean difference: -1.06, 95% CI: -1.80 to -0.32, P = 0.005) and doctorate degrees (mean difference: -1.14, 95% CI: -1.91 to -0.38, P = 0.003) were closer to the faculty-assessments than residents with bachelor's degrees. Compared with patient care, the differences between self- and faculty- rated scores were smaller in medical knowledge (mean difference: -0.18, 95% CI: -0.35 to -0.02, P = 0.031) and interpersonal and communication skills (mean difference: -0.41, 95% CI: -0.64 to -0.19, P < 0.001) in the generalized estimating equation logistic regression model. CONCLUSIONS: This study revealed that residents tended to overestimate themselves, emphasizing the need to improve the accuracy of Milestones self-assessment. The differences between self- and faculty-assessments were associated with residents' degrees and domains of competency.

Barriers to safe anaesthesia care in South Asian countries: a virtual focus group discussion.

Objective: To identify barriers to safe anaesthesia practice across the South Asian region. METHODS: The qualitative study was conducted from September 2020 to August 2021 at the Department of Anaesthesiology at a leading medical university after getting exemption from the ethics review committee of the Pakistan Society of Anaesthesiologists. The sample comprised anaesthetists from 6 countries of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation. Data was collected through a focus group discussion held virtually using the Zoom app on September 22, 2020. The proceedings were transcribed and the data was subjected to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Of the 12 anaesthetists, 4(33.3%) were from India, 3(25%) from Pakistan, 2(16.7%) from Bangladesh, and 1(8.3%) each from Sri Lanka, Nepal and Afghanistan. There were 2 main themes identified; Safe anaesthesia and barriers to safe anaesthesia. They had 4 and 6 subthemes, respectively. The participants agreed that fresh medical graduates were not choosing anaesthesia as a preferred career specialty. One major concern raised was that qualified anaesthetists were leaving their countries for better-paid jobs abroad. Conclusion: The lack of a definition describing qualified anaesthetists in South Asian countries was pointed out. Lack of basic monitoring and drugs, brain drain, lack of ownership, lack of training programmes, lack of accountability, weak leadership, and disconnect between professional societies and governments were identified as the main barriers to safe anaesthesia.

Navigating the complex dynamics of anesthesiologists' professional identity formation in the context of their specialty training program: a phenomenographic perspective.

BACKGROUND: A specialty training program is crucial for shaping future specialist doctors, imparting clinical knowledge and skills, and fostering a robust professional identity. This study investigates how anesthesiologists develop their professional identity while navigating unique challenges specific to their specialty. The formation of professional identity in anesthesiology significantly influences doctors' well-being, teamwork, and ultimately patient care, making it a crucial aspect of anesthesiology education. Utilizing a phenomenographic approach, the research explores the learners' personal experiences and perspectives of professional identity formation in their specialty training programs, providing valuable insights for enhancing future anesthetic educational programs. METHOD: The data for this phenomenographic study were collected through semi-structured interviews with anesthesiology trainees and specialists, guided by open-ended questions. The interviews were conducted at a Swedish university hospital, and participant selection used purposive sampling, providing rich and diverse data for analysis after 15 interviews. Iterative analysis followed the seven-step phenomenographic approach. The research team, comprising qualitative research and anesthesiology education experts, ensured result validity through regular review, discussion, and reflective practices. RESULTS: The study reveals three fundamental dimensions: 'Knowledge of Subject Matter,' 'Knowledge of Human Relations,' and 'Knowledge of Affect.' These dimensions offer insights into how anesthesiologists comprehend anesthesiology as a profession, navigate interactions with colleagues and patients, and interpret emotional experiences in anesthesiology practice - all crucial elements in the formation of professional identity. The findings could be synthesized and further described by three conceptions: The Outcome-Driven Learner, the Emerging Collaborator, and the Self-Directed Caregiver. CONCLUSION: The study uncovers differing learner understandings in the development of anesthesiologists' professional identity. Varying priorities, values, and role interpretations highlight the shortcomings of a generic, one-size-fits-all educational strategy. By acknowledging and integrating these nuanced learner perspectives, as elucidated in detail in this study, the future of anesthesia education can be improved. This will necessitate a holistic approach, intertwining both natural sciences and humanities studies, focus on tacit knowledge, and flexible teaching strategies, to guarantee thorough professional development, lifelong learning, and resilience.

Challenges for Nurse Anesthetists Reentering Practice Following Substance Use Disorder Treatment.

Substance use disorder (SUD) is a persistent, relapsing condition that is present in approximately 10% of anesthesia providers, who, compared with other healthcare providers, face a greater risk of developing an SUD by virtue of constant access to medications. The ability of certified registered nurse anesthesiologists (CRNAs) to obtain or maintain employment after treatment for SUD treatment is not well documented. The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore challenges encountered by CRNAs in recovery as they attempt to reenter practice following SUD treatment. The phenomenon was explored through multiple-case study, using qualitative semistructured interviews with participants in four cases: CRNAs in recovery, CRNA colleagues, CRNA employers, and professional health program employees. Thirty-six participants conveyed their perspectives about challenges that CRNAs in recovery face upon reentry into practice following SUD treatment. The Worker Well-Being conceptual model was used to guide this study. The study revealed that more SUD education is a key facilitator for reentry, risk of relapse was a major concern, and stigma was the most significant barrier for CRNAs in recovery. Stigma persists as a considerable barrier in many facets of SUD, contributing to an increase in shame associated with having the disease.

Anesthesia Medication Safety in Relation to Pharmacopeia Medication Use Best Practice Initiatives.

Improvement to anesthesia medication safety is a useful and worthwhile area of research. Anesthesia is one of the few healthcare professions to have immediate access to compounding and label high-hazard medications at the bedside. There is a need to assess the perceptions of anesthesia medication safety and this relationship with pharmacopeia's updated recommendations for anesthesia to improve medication safety and prevent adverse drug events. Certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) perceptions of medication safety climate in Florida were measured utilizing a validated Likert-scale that merged the Attitudes Questionnaire themes of teamwork, climate, safety climate, job satisfaction, stress recognition, perceptions of management, and working. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture themes utilized were organizational learning, error communication, and support for patient safety. The overall email invitations delivered 5,890, 524 participants voluntarily started, and 401 completed the questionnaire resulting in a 77% completion rate. The overall response rate was 8.896% and 6.8% overall completion rate. The findings demonstrate a correlation between themes related to supportive organizational learning, stress reduction, positive changes, and creating anesthesia medication quality improvements. CRNAs' openness in adopting new pharmacopeia best practice recommendations can improve anesthesia medication safety delivery. The survey indicated clinical noteworthiness that supports the importance of additional examination of frontline providers' perceptions regarding anesthesia medication safety, buy-in, and adoption of updated pharmacopeia recommendations.

A New Distal Pharyngeal Airway Device Associated with a Reduced Need for Chin-Lift and Jaw-Thrust Maneuvers in Sedated Patients.

Oropharyngeal airways (OPA) or nasopharyngeal airways (NPA) sometimes require chin-lift or jaw-thrust (CLJT) maneuvers to relieve airway obstruction which creates the burden of continuous hands-on care by the anesthesia provider. A new distal pharyngeal airway device (DPA) was used on 63 successive ambulatory surgery patients to assess the frequency of patients requiring manual CLJT maneuvers to prevent airway obstruction. Results were then compared with a contemporaneous group of patients who had used OPA or NPA devices for similar procedures. Patients using the DPA had a 38.5% lower rate of CLJT maneuvers compared with the combined OPA/NPA groups (22.2% of 63 vs. 60.7% of 163, P ≤ .001). Moreover, the results for the DPA group were close to those of the natural airway group (22.2% of 62 vs. 24.8% of 233, P = .66) Results were similar for a sub-set of the above groups who required deep sedation or deep extubation. CLJT maneuvers were common in this ambulatory surgery setting. The new DPA device was associated with a reduced need for such manual maneuvers when compared with similar patients who received OPA or NPA devices and is comparable with the rate for natural airways.