Simulation-Based Education in Acute and Chronic Pain Training.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of simulation-based education (SBE) in medical training has expanded greatly and has grown to include high fidelity and task simulation along with hybrid models using patient actors to enhance education and training of critical events as well as technical skills. RECENT FINDINGS: In the field of anesthesiology, SBE has been particularly useful for crisis resource management and rare critical scenarios and new research into the use of SBE using task simulation for procedural skill development has been done highlighting the benefits to subspecialty procedural training. Medical simulation has become a common practice in medical training and research. SBE has demonstrated positive outcomes in improving technical skills, knowledge, comfort, and clinical performance. The widespread implementation of SBE in regional anesthesia and chronic pain training varies, with cost and availability being factors. Nonetheless, SBE has shown great potential in enhancing education and preparing physicians in subspecialties of anesthesia.

A modern roadmap for the use of simulation in regional anesthesiology training.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: A variety of educational modalities are used to teach regional anesthesia. Simulation is an educational tool that facilitates hands-on learning in a well tolerated, reproducible environment, eliminating potential harm to patients during the process of learning. Available literature and expert consensus statements support customizing simulation programs according to the level of training and experience of the learners. RECENT FINDINGS: Simulation is useful for learners of all levels of expertise, though the application and frequency of simulation must be adapted to meet the learners' objectives. SUMMARY: This review presents recommendations for the use of simulation for residents, fellows, practicing anesthesiologists without formal training in regional anesthesia, and practicing anesthesiologists with regional anesthesia expertise. Passports and portfolio programs that include simulation can be used to verify training. Virtual applications of simulation are growing, expanding the scope of regional anesthesia simulation and increasing access to lower resource areas.

A systematic review of patient-reported outcome measures to assess postpartum pain using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines.

BACKGROUND: We performed a systematic review using Consensus Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines to identify the best available patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of postpartum pain. METHODS: This review follows COSMIN guidelines. We searched four databases with no date limiters, for previously identified validated PROMs used to assess postpartum pain. PROMs evaluating more than one author-defined domain of postpartum pain were assessed. We sought studies evaluating psychometric properties. An overall rating was then assigned based upon COSMIN analysis, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of evidence for psychometric properties of included PROMs. These assessments were used to make recommendations and identify the best PROM to assess postpartum pain. RESULTS: We identified 19 studies using seven PROMs (involving 3511 women), which evaluated postpartum pain. All included studies evaluated ≥1 psychometric property of the included PROMs. An adequate number of pain domains was assessed by the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), Short Form-BPI (SF-BPI), and McGill Pain Questionnaire (MPQ). The SF-BPI was the only PROM to demonstrate adequate content validity and at least a low-level of evidence for sufficient internal consistency, resulting in a Class A recommendation (the best performing instrument, recommended for use). CONCLUSION: SF-BPI is the best currently available PROM to assess postpartum pain. However, it fails to assess several important domains and only just met the criteria for a Class A recommendation. Future studies are warranted to develop, evaluate, and implement a new PROM designed to specifically assess postpartum pain.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Assess Outpatient Postpartum Recovery: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Outpatient postpartum recovery is an underexplored area of obstetrics. There is currently no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) clinicians and researchers should use to evaluate postpartum recovery. Objective: To evaluate PROMs of outpatient postpartum recovery using Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Evidence Review: An initial literature search performed in July 2019 identified postpartum recovery PROMs and validation studies. A secondary search in July 2020 identified additional validation studies. Both searches were performed using 4 databases (Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL), with no date limiters. Studies with PROMs evaluating more than 3 proposed outpatient postpartum recovery domains were considered. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric measurement property of the included PROMs in the outpatient postpartum setting. The PROMs were assessed for the following 8 psychometric measurement properties, as defined by COSMIN: content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Psychometric measurement properties were evaluated in each included study using the COSMIN criteria by assessing (1) the quality of the methods (very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate, or not assessed); (2) overall rating of results (sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate); (3) level of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessment tool; and (4) level of recommendation, which included class A (recommended for use; showed adequate content validity with at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency), class B (not class A or class C), or class C (not recommended). Findings: In total, 15 PROMs (7 obstetric specific and 8 non-obstetric specific) were identified, evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery in 46 studies involving 19 165 women. The majority of psychometric measurement properties of the included PROMs were graded as having very-low-level or low-level evidence. The best-performing PROMs that received class A recommendations were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF. The remainder of the evaluated PROMs had insufficient evidence to make recommendations regarding their use (and received class B recommendations). Conclusions and Relevance: This review found that the best-performing PROMs currently available to evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF; however, these tools all had significant limitations. This study highlights the need to focus future efforts on robustly developing and validating a new PROM that may comprehensively evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery.