Simulation-based Assessment to Reliably Identify Key Resident Performance Attributes.

BACKGROUND: Obtaining reliable and valid information on resident performance is critical to patient safety and training program improvement. The goals were to characterize important anesthesia resident performance gaps that are not typically evaluated, and to further validate scores from a multiscenario simulation-based assessment. METHODS: Seven high-fidelity scenarios reflecting core anesthesiology skills were administered to 51 first-year residents (CA-1s) and 16 third-year residents (CA-3s) from three residency programs. Twenty trained attending anesthesiologists rated resident performances using a seven-point behaviorally anchored rating scale for five domains: (1) formulate a clear plan, (2) modify the plan under changing conditions, (3) communicate effectively, (4) identify performance improvement opportunities, and (5) recognize limits. A second rater assessed 10% of encounters. Scores and variances for each domain, each scenario, and the total were compared. Low domain ratings (1, 2) were examined in detail. RESULTS: Interrater agreement was 0.76; reliability of the seven-scenario assessment was r = 0.70. CA-3s had a significantly higher average total score (4.9 ± 1.1 vs. 4.6 ± 1.1, P = 0.01, effect size = 0.33). CA-3s significantly outscored CA-1s for five of seven scenarios and domains 1, 2, and 3. CA-1s had a significantly higher proportion of worrisome ratings than CA-3s (chi-square = 24.1, P < 0.01, effect size = 1.50). Ninety-eight percent of residents rated the simulations more educational than an average day in the operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Sensitivity of the assessment to CA-1 versus CA-3 performance differences for most scenarios and domains supports validity. No differences, by experience level, were detected for two domains associated with reflective practice. Smaller score variances for CA-3s likely reflect a training effect; however, worrisome performance scores for both CA-1s and CA-3s suggest room for improvement.

Anesthesia in the late 1960s at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital, Boston: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Regional and general anesthesia were widely available in the United States in the late 1960s. The risk of permanent neurological sequelae resulting from spinal anesthesia had largely been dismissed. Although many academic departments of anesthesiology had gained independent status, a significant number operated as divisions within the department of surgery. We present a case report from Peter Bent Brigham Hospital to illustrate the state of anesthetic techniques in use during the late 1960s, and the power dynamics vis-à-vis physician anesthesiologists and surgeons. SOURCES: Hospital records and interviews with individuals familiar with the case. FINDINGS: An otherwise healthy patient underwent inguinal hernia repair. The resident anesthesiologist conducted a preoperative assessment the evening prior to surgery with the patient consenting to the spinal anesthesia, a plan agreeable to the faculty anesthesiologist. The attending surgeon was one of the most prominent surgeons in America and the chairman of their department. He disapproved of the planned anesthetic. Subsequent modifications to the anesthetic plans are discussed, as is the fallout from those actions. CONCLUSION: Spinal anesthesia remained a popular anesthetic option during the late 1960s. General anesthesia with ether, halothane, and other agents an alternative. This case highlights various aspects of perioperative management during a period when many American academic departments of anesthesiology existed as divisions within the department of surgery. It also touches upon the careers of two prominent American physicians.

A report on the consequences of the first implanted device for long-term analgesia in refractory cancer pain.

BACKGROUND: During the early 1970s, satisfactory long-term treatment of the severe pain associated with metastatic cancer was not available. Spinal cord stimulation introduced a few years earlier in 1967 had not proven to be effective in treating nociceptive pain. We describe our pioneering experience using an implanted device to infuse local anesthetics into the epidural space and provide pain relief to the patient. METHODS: Increasing doses of systemic opioids were unsuccessful in treating the intractable pain of spinal metastases in our patient. We devised an analgesic delivery system by modifying equipment usually used for ventriculoperitoneal shunts. A lumbar epidural catheter was inserted in the patient's spine, then tunneled subcutaneously across the flank to the anterior abdominal wall, and subsequently connected to a modified Ommaya reservoir with ventriculoperitoneal shunt tubing. This was filled with local anesthetic and injected into the patient's epidural space by manual compression. RESULTS: The system was used for several months with intermittent addition of local anesthetic to the reservoir with satisfactory control of the patient's pain. CONCLUSIONS: We describe the first use of an implanted epidural catheter system for long-term relief of pain due to terminal cancer that occurred at Peter Bent Brigham Hospital in Boston. We contend that this event played an important role in the cascade of devices that followed and connect it to the changes in the attitude of health care providers toward treatment of cancer pain.