Regional anesthesia for transplantation surgery - A White Paper Part 2: Abdominal transplantation surgery.

Transplantation surgery continues to evolve and improve through advancements in transplant technique and technology. With the increased availability of ultrasound machines as well as the continued development of Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) protocols, regional anesthesia has become an essential component of providing analgesia and minimizing opioid use perioperatively. Many centers currently utilize peripheral and neuraxial blocks during transplantation surgery, but these techniques are far from standardized practices. The utilization of these procedures is often dependent on transplantation centers' historical methods and perioperative cultures. To date, no formal guidelines or recommendations exist which address the use of regional anesthesia in transplantation surgery. In response, the Society for the Advancement of Transplant Anesthesia (SATA) identified experts in both transplantation surgery and regional anesthesia to review available literature concerning these topics. The goal of this task force was to provide an overview of these publications to help guide transplantation anesthesiologists in utilizing regional anesthesia. The literature search encompassed most transplantation surgeries currently performed and the multitude of associated regional anesthetic techniques. Outcomes analyzed included analgesic effectiveness of the blocks, reduction in other analgesic modalities-particularly opioid use, improvement in patient hemodynamics, as well as associated complications. The findings summarized in this systemic review support the use of regional anesthesia for postoperative pain control after transplantation surgeries. Part 1 of the manuscript focused on regional anesthesia performed in thoracic transplantation surgeries, and part 2 in abdominal transplantations. Specifically, regional anesthesia in liver, kidney, pancreas, intestinal, and uterus transplants or applicable surgeries are discussed.

Acquire, Curate, Diversify: Staying Current With Key Medical Education Literature.

Rapid technological advancement has led to increasingly convenient and affordable access to academic publications while also contributing to information overload.We recommend the following strategies for clinicians and researchers to effectively stay current with themedical education literaturemost applicable to their areas of focus. 1,2.

Family Anesthesia Experience: Improving Social Support of Residents Through Education of Their Family and Friends.

Introduction: The prevalence of burnout among anesthesiology residents is 41%-51%. Burnout is associated with medical errors, physician turnover, and substance use disorder. Social support and wellness may reduce burnout, but a barrier is support persons' lack of understanding of an anesthesiologist's work demands. We developed the Family Anesthesia Experience (FAX) to help support persons best support their resident. Methods: FAX consisted of a 4-hour event with hands-on experience, didactics portion, and panel discussion. Participants learned about a typical day in the life of an anesthesiology resident, wellness, burnout, substance use disorder, and available support resources, and had hands-on experience with procedures. The panel discussion offered logistical information about anesthesiology residency and allowed support persons to ask panel members questions. A postevent survey collected feedback on the event. Results: Fifty-one participants (first-year anesthesiology residents and their support persons) attended the event. Eight of 11 residents (73%) and 32 of 40 support persons (80%) completed the survey. All enjoyed the event, would recommend it to other anesthesiology resident support persons, and felt the event would improve communication and support. Most learned a moderate (35%) to large amount (50%) from the event. Qualitative feedback suggested most support persons found the event helpful in improving their understanding of anesthesiology residents' work demands. Discussion: The FAX was well liked by participants. Although we did not assess specific knowledge gained and long-term effects of the 2022 event, evaluations of previous years' events suggest that the event improved participants' understanding of anesthesiology residents' work and stressors.

Development and Pilot Testing of a Programmatic System for Competency Assessment in US Anesthesiology Residency Training.

BACKGROUND: In 2018, a set of entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and procedural skills assessments were developed for anesthesiology training, but they did not assess all the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. The aims of this study were to (1) remap the 2018 EPA and procedural skills assessments to the revised ACGME Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0, (2) develop new assessments that combined with the original assessments to create a system of assessment that addresses all level 1 to 4 milestones, and (3) provide evidence for the validity of the assessments. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, a panel of anesthesiology education experts remapped the original assessments developed in 2018 to the Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0 and developed new assessments to create a system that assessed all level 1 through 4 milestones. Following a 24-month pilot at 7 institutions, the number of EPA and procedural skill assessments and mean scores were computed at the end of the academic year. Milestone achievement and subcompetency data for assessments from a single institution were compared to scores assigned by the institution's clinical competency committee (CCC). RESULTS: New assessment development, 2 months of testing and feedback, and revisions resulted in 5 new EPAs, 11 nontechnical skills assessments (NTSAs), and 6 objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs). Combined with the original 20 EPAs and procedural skills assessments, the new system of assessment addresses 99% of level 1 to 4 Anesthesiology Milestones 2.0. During the 24-month pilot, aggregate mean EPA and procedural skill scores significantly increased with year in training. System subcompetency scores correlated significantly with 15 of 23 (65.2%) corresponding CCC scores at a single institution, but 8 correlations (36.4%) were <30.0, illustrating poor correlation. CONCLUSIONS: A panel of experts developed a set of EPAs, procedural skill assessment, NTSAs, and OSCEs to form a programmatic system of assessment for anesthesiology residency training in the United States. The method used to develop and pilot test the assessments, the progression of assessment scores with time in training, and the correlation of assessment scores with CCC scoring of milestone achievement provide evidence for the validity of the assessments.

A comparison of the American Board of Anesthesiology's in-person and virtual objective structured clinical examinations.

BACKGROUND: The American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE), as a component of its initial certification process, had been administered in-person in a dedicated assessment center since its launch in 2018 until March 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a virtual format of the exam was piloted in December 2020 and was administered in 2021. This study aimed to compare candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and scenario difficulty between these two formats of the OSCE. METHODS: The Many-Facet Rasch Model was utilized to estimate candidate performance, examiner grading severity, and scenario difficulty for the in-person and virtual OSCEs separately. The virtual OSCE was equated to the in-person OSCE by common examiners and common scenarios. Independent-samples t-test was used to compare candidate performance, and partially overlapping samples t-tests were applied to compare examiner grading severity and scenario difficulty between the in-person and virtual OSCEs. RESULTS: The in-person (n = 3235) and virtual (n = 2934) first-time candidates were comparable in age, sex, race/ethnicity, and whether U.S. medical school graduates. The virtual scenarios (n = 35, mean [0.21] ± SD [0.38] in logits) were more difficult than the in-person scenarios (n = 93, 0.00 ± 0.69, Welch's partially overlapping samples t-test, p = 0.01); there were no statistically significant differences in examiner severity (n = 390, -0.01 ± 0.82 vs. n = 304, -0.02 ± 0.93, Welch's partially overlapping samples t-test, p = 0.81) or candidate performance (2.19 ± 0.93 vs. 2.18 ± 0.92, Welch's independent samples t-test, p = 0.83) between the in-person and virtual OSCEs. CONCLUSIONS: Our retrospective analyses of first-time OSCEs found comparable candidate performance and examiner grading severity between the in-person and virtual formats, despite the virtual scenarios being more difficult than the in-person scenarios. These results provided assurance that the virtual OSCE functioned reasonably well in a high-stakes setting.

No Miracles in Two Minutes: A Randomized Controlled Study on the Impact of Preparatory Expansive Posing on Anesthesiology Residents' Performance in Mock Structured Oral Examinations.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of engaging in preparatory expansive posing on the performance of anesthesiology trainees during a mock structured oral examination. Methods: A total of 38 clinical residents at a single institution participated in this prospective randomized controlled study. Participants were stratified by clinical anesthesia year and randomly assigned to 1 of 2 orientation rooms to prepare for the examination. The preparatory expansive posing participants stood for 2 minutes with their hands and arms above their heads and with their feet approximately 1 ft apart. Conversely, the control participants sat quietly in a chair for 2 minutes. All participants then received the same orientation and examination. Faculty evaluation of resident performance, residents' self-assessment of performance, and anxiety score were collected. Results: There was no evidence to support our primary hypothesis that residents who engaged in preparatory expansive posing for 2 minutes prior to a mock structured oral examination would score higher than their control counterparts (P = .68). There was no evidence to support our secondary hypotheses that preparatory expansive posing increases self-assessment of one's performance (P = .31) or reduces perceived anxiety during a mock structured oral examination (P = .85). Conclusions: Preparatory expansive posing did not improve anesthesiology residents' mock structured oral examination performance or self-assessment of their performance, nor did it reduce their perceived anxiety. Preparatory expansive posing is likely not a useful technique in improving the performance of residents in structured oral examinations.

A Multi-Site Survey Study on the Association Between the COVID-19 Pandemic and United States Anesthesiology Residents' Mental Health.

BACKGROUND:  At the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, anesthesiology residency programs were impacted differently due to various factors such as the local severity of COVID-19, exposure to patient suffering, and inability to complete rotations. We sought to investigate the impact of local-level pandemic severity on the well-being of anesthesiology residents. METHODS:  This multi-site study surveyed postgraduate year two residents from 15 United States (US) anesthesiology programs using the Perceived Stress Scale, Mini-Z, Patient Health Questionnaire-9,WHO-5 Well-Being Index,and the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support before the pandemic (baseline survey) and during the first COVID-19 surge (post survey). RESULTS:  A total of 144 (65%) residents responded to the initial baseline survey; 73 (33%) responded to the post survey, and 49 (22%) completed both surveys. There was not a statistically significant difference in any well-being outcomes of participants between the surveys, nor was there a significant difference based on the severity of COVID-19 impact at the program's hospital. Male participants had higher perceived stress scores (ß = 4.05, 95%CI: 0.42, 7.67, P = 0.03) and lower social support from family (ß = -6.57, 95%CI: -11.64, -1.51, P = 0.01) at the post survey compared to female participants after controlling for baseline scores. Additionally, married participants or those with domestic partners reported higher perceived social support in the post survey (ß = 5.79, 95%CI: -0.65, 12.23, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION:  The local COVID-19 severity at a residency program did not disproportionately impact well-being scores among anesthesiology residents. Those most vulnerable to diminished well-being appeared to be male and single participants. As a result, targeted well-being interventions, including those aiming to increase social support, to higher-risk resident groups may be indicated. Future work is needed to assess the longstanding COVID-19 pandemic impacts on resident well-being.

National Delphi Survey on Anesthesiology Resident Training in Perioperative Ultrasound.

OBJECTIVE: To establish agreement among nationwide experts through a Delphi process on the key components of perioperative ultrasound and the recommended minimum number of examinations that should be performed by a resident upon graduation. DESIGN: A prospective cross-sectional study. SETTING: A survey on multiinstitutional academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Anesthesiology residency program directors and/or experts in perioperative ultrasound. INTERVENTIONS: A list of components and examinations recommended for anesthesiology resident training in perioperative ultrasound was developed based on guidelines and 2 survey rounds among a steering committee of 10 experts. A questionnaire asking for a rating of each component on a 5-point Likert scale subsequently was sent to an expert panel of 120 anesthesiology residency program directors across the United States. An agreement of at least 70% of participants, rating a component as 4 or 5, was compulsory to list a component as essential for anesthesiology resident training in perioperative ultrasound. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The nationwide survey's response rate was 62.5%, and agreement was reached after 2 Delphi rounds. The final list included 44 essential components for basic ultrasound physics and knobology, cardiac ultrasound, lung ultrasound, and ultrasound-guided vascular access. Agreement was not reached for abdominal ultrasound, gastric ultrasound, and ultrasound-guided airway assessment. Agreement for the recommended minimum number of examinations that should be performed by a resident upon graduation included 50 each for transthoracic and transesophageal echocardiography, and 20 each for lung ultrasound, ultrasound-guided central line, and ultrasound-guided arterial line placements. CONCLUSIONS: The recommendations outlined in this survey can be used to establish standardized training for perioperative ultrasound by anesthesiology residency programs.

Perception Precedes Reality: A Simulation and Procedural Bootcamp Improves Residents' Comfort With Transitioning to Clinical Anesthesiology Training.

Background The transition from internship to clinical anesthesiology (CA) training is often difficult given the differences in workflow, procedures, environment, and clinical situations. The primary aims of this study were to determine if a standardized introductory bootcamp could improve clinical knowledge and self-perceived comfort level of new anesthesiology residents in performing common operating room procedures and management of common intraoperative problems. The secondary aim of the study was to see if a standardized bootcamp could be replicated at other programs. Methods The introduction to anesthesiology resident bootcamp was developed at one institution in 2015 then expanded to a second program in 2019. The bootcamp was a one-day experience consisting of simulation and task trainers that all rising first-year CA residents (CA-1) participated in during their first month of anesthesiology training. All participating residents were given a survey immediately before and after the bootcamp. The average ratings of the questions were calculated and used as the primary measure. The Anesthesia Knowledge Test (AKT) was used as a surrogate measure of participant knowledge. Results From 2015 to 2020, a total of 105 residents completed the pre-survey and 109 completed the post-survey across the two sites. The improvement in average rating was significant (Pre: 2.04±0.46 versus Post: 3.09±0.52 p<0.0001). Individual item analysis also showed significant improvement on all of the eight items (p<0.0001). Analyses by site revealed the same results at both average score and item level. There was no significant cohort difference in either AKT-0 (Control: 57.84±26.86 versus Intervention 50.13±25.14, p=0.14) or AKT-1 (Control: 41.06±26.42 versus Intervention 41.70±26.60, p=0.90) percentile scores. Conclusions Incorporation of an introduction to anesthesia bootcamp for new residents significantly improves participant comfort level and is reproducible across institutions. However, it does not improve resident performance on standardized tests.

Transitioning to Virtual Meetings: Experiences From the Society for Education in Anesthesia Virtual Fall 2020 Meeting.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced organizers of traditional in-person continuing medical education conferences to transition to a virtual format. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this change in format. When planning a virtual meeting, several factors require consideration, including costs, virtual platforms, sponsorship, networking, and meeting logistics. This manuscript describes the authors' experiences of transforming the Society of Education in Anesthesia 2020 Fall Meeting into a virtual conference and explores the lessons learned and future impacts of this new medium.

Objective postoperative pain assessment using incentive spirometry values: a prospective observational study.

Aim: Determine if incentive spirometry (IS) values correlate with postoperative pain control. Design: Prospective observational study. Setting & participants: A total of 100 patients undergoing major abdominal procedures at the University of North Carolina Medical Center. Interventions: Patients studied as a single cohort. All patients received thoracic epidural analgesia preoperatively. Outcome: Preoperative and daily postoperative numeric pain scores, subjective pain description and IS values were collected for all patients. Results: There was a strong correlation with IS values relative to baseline for both the numeric pain scores (p < 0.0001), postoperative day (p < 0.0001) and the subjective pain score (p < 0.0007). Conclusion: IS values are an objective surrogate data point for pain control after surgery, particularly when followed over time and compared with a preoperative baseline value.

Utilizing multimodal analgesia to evaluate postoperative analgesic requirements in kidney transplant recipients.

The use of non-opioid analgesics following surgery has proven beneficial in managing pain and decreasing adverse outcomes following surgery. Data assessing outcomes related to opioid use is limited in kidney transplant recipients (KTRs). We evaluated the effectiveness of implementing a reduced to no opioid use protocol in KTRs. This retrospective cohort study included adult KTRs between January 2017 and July 2019 with a multimodal analgesic protocol (MAP), focused on limiting opioids, implemented in August 2018. We compared analgesic requirements in morphine milligram equivalents (MME) during transplant admissions between the MAP cohort and traditional cohort. There were 217 KTRs who met the criteria. Inpatient opioid use was significantly reduced in the MAP cohort (16.5 ± 19.2 MME/day vs 24.7 ± 19.7 MME/day; P <.05) with no significant difference in pain scores. No use of opioids within six months of discharge was significantly increased in the MAP cohort (50% vs 7%; P <.001), and there were no reported deaths at six months in either cohort. The use of multimodal analgesia is beneficial in KTRs to provide adequate pain control with limited to no exposure of opioids during admission or at discharge.

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.

Educating Anesthesiologists During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic and Beyond.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered approaches to anesthesiology education by shifting educational paradigms. This vision article discusses pre-COVID-19 educational methodologies and best evidence, adaptations required under COVID-19, and evidence for these modifications, and suggests future directions for anesthesiology education. Learning management systems provide structure to online learning. They have been increasingly utilized to improve access to didactic materials asynchronously. Despite some historic reservations, the pandemic has necessitated a rapid uptake across programs. Commercially available systems offer a wide range of peer-reviewed curricular options. The flipped classroom promotes learning foundational knowledge before teaching sessions with a focus on application during structured didactics. There is growing evidence that this approach is preferred by learners and may increase knowledge gain. The flipped classroom works well with learning management systems to disseminate focused preclass work. Care must be taken to keep virtual sessions interactive. Simulation, already used in anesthesiology, has been critical in preparation for the care of COVID-19 patients. Multidisciplinary, in situ simulations allow for rapid dissemination of new team workflows. Physical distancing and reduced availability of providers have required more sessions. Early pandemic decreases in operating volumes have allowed for this; future planning will have to incorporate smaller groups, sanitizing of equipment, and attention to use of personal protective equipment. Effective technical skills training requires instruction to mastery levels, use of deliberate practice, and high-quality feedback. Reduced sizes of skill-training workshops and approaches for feedback that are not in-person will be required. Mock oral and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) allow for training and assessment of competencies often not addressed otherwise. They provide formative and summative data and objective measurements of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. They also allow for preparation for the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) APPLIED examination. Adaptations to teleconferencing or videoconferencing can allow for continued use. Benefits of teaching in this new era include enhanced availability of asynchronous learning and opportunities to apply universal, expert-driven curricula. Burdens include decreased social interactions and potential need for an increased amount of smaller, live sessions. Acquiring learning management systems and holding more frequent simulation and skills sessions with fewer learners may increase cost. With the increasing dependency on multimedia and technology support for teaching and learning, one important focus of educational research is on the development and evaluation of strategies that reduce extraneous processing and manage essential and generative processing in virtual learning environments. Collaboration to identify and implement best practices has the potential to improve education for all learners.

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.

Development of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination as a Component of Assessment for Initial Board Certification in Anesthesiology.

With its first administration of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate this type of assessment into its high-stakes certification examination system. The fundamental rationale for the ABA's introduction of the OSCE is to include an assessment that allows candidates for board certification to demonstrate what they actually "do" in domains relevant to clinical practice. Inherent in this rationale is that the OSCE will capture competencies not well assessed in the current written and oral examinations-competencies that will allow the ABA to judge whether a candidate meets the standards expected for board certification more properly. This special article describes the ABA's journey from initial conceptualization through first administration of the OSCE, including the format of the OSCE, the process for scenario development, the standardized patient program that supports OSCE administration, examiner training, scoring, and future assessment of reliability, validity, and impact of the OSCE. This information will be beneficial to both those involved in the initial certification process, such as residency graduate candidates and program directors, and others contemplating the use of high-stakes summative OSCE assessments.