BACKGROUND: Management of mechanical ventilation (MV) is an important and complex aspect of caring for critically ill patients. Management strategies and technical operation of the ventilator are key skills for physicians in training, as lack of expertise can lead to substantial patient harm. OBJECTIVE: We performed a narrative review of the literature describing MV education in graduate medical education (GME) and identified best practices for training and assessment methods. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar for English-language, peer-reviewed articles describing MV education and assessment. We included articles from 2000 through July 2018 pertaining to MV education or training in GME. RESULTS: Fifteen articles met inclusion criteria. Studies related to MV training in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, general surgery, and internal medicine residency programs, as well as subspecialty training in critical care medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, and pulmonary and critical care medicine. Nearly half of trainees assessed were dissatisfied with their MV education. Six studies evaluated educational interventions, all employing simulation as an educational strategy, although there was considerable heterogeneity in content. Most outcomes were assessed with multiple-choice knowledge testing; only 2 studies evaluated the care of actual patients after an educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of information describing MV education in GME. The available literature demonstrates that trainees are generally dissatisfied with MV training. Best practices include establishing MV-specific learning objectives and incorporating simulation. Next research steps include developing competency standards and validity evidence for assessment tools that can be utilized across MV educational curricula.
BACKGROUND: Management of mechanical ventilation (MV) is an important and complex aspect of caring for critically ill patients. Management strategies and technical operation of the ventilator are key skills for physicians in training, as lack of expertise can lead to substantial patient harm. OBJECTIVE: We performed a narrative review of the literature describing MV education in graduate medical education (GME) and identified best practices for training and assessment methods. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, and Google Scholar for English-language, peer-reviewed articles describing MV education and assessment. We included articles from 2000 through July 2018 pertaining to MV education or training in GME. RESULTS: Fifteen articles met inclusion criteria. Studies related to MV training in anesthesiology, emergency medicine, general surgery, and internal medicine residency programs, as well as subspecialty training in critical care medicine, pediatric critical care medicine, and pulmonary and critical care medicine. Nearly half of trainees assessed were dissatisfied with their MV education. Six studies evaluated educational interventions, all employing simulation as an educational strategy, although there was considerable heterogeneity in content. Most outcomes were assessed with multiple-choice knowledge testing; only 2 studies evaluated the care of actual patients after an educational intervention. CONCLUSIONS: There is a paucity of information describing MV education in GME. The available literature demonstrates that trainees are generally dissatisfied with MV training. Best practices include establishing MV-specific learning objectives and incorporating simulation. Next research steps include developing competency standards and validity evidence for assessment tools that can be utilized across MV educational curricula.
Authors: Kristin R Wise; Valery A Akopov; Byron R Williams; Moges S Ido; Kenneth V Leeper; Daniel D Dressler Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2011-11-08 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Shannon S Carson; E Wesley Ely; Joseph A Govert; Joanne M Garrett; Roy G Brower; David G Morris; Edward Abraham; Vincent Donnabella; Antoinette Spevetz; Jesse B Hall Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2002-09-25 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Clara J Schroedl; Thomas C Corbridge; Elaine R Cohen; Sherene S Fakhran; Daniel Schimmel; William C McGaghie; Diane B Wayne Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2011-10-26 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Davide Colombo; Gianmaria Cammarota; Moreno Alemani; Luca Carenzo; Federico Lorenzo Barra; Rosanna Vaschetto; Arthur S Slutsky; Francesco Della Corte; Paolo Navalesi Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Ognjen Gajic; Fernando Frutos-Vivar; André Esteban; Rolf D Hubmayr; Antonio Anzueto Journal: Intensive Care Med Date: 2005-04-26 Impact factor: 17.440
Authors: Todd Dorman; Peter B Angood; Derek C Angus; Terry P Clemmer; Neal H Cohen; Charles G Durbin; Jay L Falk; Mark A Helfaer; Marilyn T Haupt; H Mathilda Horst; Michael E Ivy; Frederick P Ognibene; Robert N Sladen; Ake N A Grenvik; Lena M Napolitano Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Nitin Seam; Eric Kriner; Christian J Woods; Nirav G Shah; Megan Acho; Michael T McCurdy; Jeffrey Mikita; Jalil Ahari; Junfeng Sun; Taison Bell; Burton W Lee Journal: ATS Sch Date: 2020-12-22
Authors: Penny Andrews; Joseph Shiber; Maria Madden; Gary F Nieman; Luigi Camporota; Nader M Habashi Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-07-25 Impact factor: 4.755