The use of a checklist improves anaesthesiologists' technical and non-technical performance for simulated malignant hyperthermia management.

BACKGROUND: Anaesthesiologists may occasionally manage life-threatening operating room (OR) emergencies. Managing OR emergencies implies real-time analysis of often complicated situations, prompt medical knowledge retrieval, coordinated teamwork and effective decision making in stressful settings. Checklists are recommended to improve performance and reduce the risk of medical errors. This study aimed to assess the usefulness of the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care's (SFAR) "Malignant Hyperthermia" (MH) checklist on a simulated episode of MH crisis and management thereof by registered anesthesiologists. METHODS: Twenty-four anaesthesiologists were allocated to 2 groups (checklist and control). Their technical performance in adherence with the SFAR guidelines was assessed by a 30-point score and their non-technical performance was assessed by the Anaesthetists' Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) score. Every task completion was assessed independently. Data are shown as median (first-third quartiles). RESULTS: Anaesthesiologists in the checklist group had higher technical performance scores (24/30 (21.5-25) vs 18/30 (15.5-19.5), P=0.002) and ANTS scores (56.5/60 (47.5-58) vs 48.5/60 (41-50.5), P=0.024). They administered the complete initial dose of dantrolene (2mg/kg) more quickly (15.7 minutes [13.9-18.3] vs 22.4 minutes [18.6-25]) than the control group (P=0.017). However, anaesthesiologists deemed the usability of the checklist to be perfectible. CONCLUSION: Registered anaesthesiologists' use of the MH checklist during a simulation session widely improved their adherence to guidelines and non-technical skills. This study strongly suggests the benefit of checklist tools for emergency management. Notwithstanding, better awareness and training for anaesthesiologists could further improve the use of this tool.

Evolution of stress in anaesthesia registrars with repeated simulated courses: An observational study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: High-fidelity medical simulation is a source of stress for participants. The aim of this study was to assess if repeated simulated courses decrease perceived stress and/or physiological stress level and increase performance in anaesthesiology registrars. METHOD: Fourteen anaesthesiology specialty registrars participated individually in three successive sessions of crisis simulation in the operating room. Participants' perceived stress levels were measured by self-assessment (simple numerical scale from 0 to 10 [0=no stress, 10=maximum stress]) and physiological stress was estimated via the maximal heart rate measured by a Holter system). Technical and non-technical performances were also assessed. Data are expressed as medians with interquartile ranges and extremes (median (IQR [Min-Max])). RESULTS: Between the first and third session, simulation repetition was associated with a decrease in perceived stress (9 (8-10 [5-10]) versus 7 (5-8 [2-9]) from session 1 to session 3 respectively, P=0.02), whereas physiological stress assessed by the maximum heart rate remained unchanged (130 beats per minute (116-141 [85-170]) and 123 beats per minute (115-136 [88-166]) between sessions 1 and 3 respectively). There was also a significant inverse correlation between perceived stress levels experienced by registrars during the session and non-technical performance (P=0.008). CONCLUSION: We observed a reduction in perceived stress levels experienced by registrars while physiological stress was unchanged with repeating simulation sessions combining simulated practice and debriefing. Learning through simulation could improve perceived stress management in critical situations.

Residents in tutored practice exchange groups have better medical reasoning as measured by the script concordance test: A pilot study.

BACKGROUND: This pilot study attempted to evaluate the impact of a practice exchange group (PEG) tutored by a senior anaesthesiologist on clinical reasoning performance of anaesthesiology residents for uncertain situations. Changes in clinical reasoning were measured by script concordance tests (SCT). METHODS: First, a curriculum, with educational objectives and assessment tools, was proposed to all residents at the beginning of their 6-month training. The first group (control) consisted of residents undergoing a 6-month rotation without PEG training. The second group (PEG group) consisted of the residents starting a new rotation 6 months later, who followed a weekly PEG session. In both groups, clinical reasoning was assessed in the same manner, with SCTs, multiple-choice questions (MCQs) and questions with short answers. The primary outcome measurement of this study was the SCT results in the group with PEG training (PEG group) in comparison with those without (control group). RESULTS: The performance in the SCT, expressed as the degree of concordance with the panel [95% confidence interval or CI], was better in the PEG group including 19 residents (72 [68 to 76] %) as compared to the control group including 17 residents (60 [57 to 63] % P<0.001). Performances (mean [95% CI]) in MCQs and short answers were better in the PEG group (64 [57 to 71] and 74 [68 to 72] %, respectively) when compared with the control group (32 [28 to 36]% [P<0.001] and 60 [52 to 68] % [P<0.01], respectively). CONCLUSION: Our pilot study suggested that a senior-directed, peer-conducted educational training might improve the clinical reasoning of anaesthesia residents as measured by the SCT.