Garrett W Burnett 1 , Anjan S Shah 2 , Daniel J Katz 2 , Christina L Jeng 2,3 Show Affiliations »
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest in simulated learning, little is known about its use within regional anesthesia training programs. In this study, we aimed to characterise the simulation modalities and limitations of simulation use for US-based resident and fellow training in regional anesthesiology. METHODS: An 18-question survey was distributed to regional anesthesiology fellowship program directors in the USA. The survey aimed to describe residency and fellowship program demographics, modalities of simulation used, use of simulation for assessment, and limitations to simulation use. RESULTS: Forty-two of 77 (54.5%) fellowship directors responded to the survey. Eighty per cent of respondents with residency training programs utilized simulation for regional anesthesiology education, while simulation was used for 66.7% of fellowship programs. The most common modalities of simulation were gel phantom models (residency: 80.0%, fellowship: 52.4%) and live model scanning (residency: 50.0%, fellowship: 42.9%). Only 12.5% of residency programs and 7.1% of fellowship programs utilized simulation for assessment of skills. The most common greatest limitation to simulation use was simulator availability (28.6%) and funding (21.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation use for education is common within regional anesthesiology training programs, but rarely used for assessment. Funding and simulator availability are the most common limitations to simulation use. © American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
BACKGROUND: Despite a growing interest in simulated learning, little is known about its use within regional anesthesia training programs. In this study, we aimed to characterise the simulation modalities and limitations of simulation use for US-based resident and fellow training in regional anesthesiology. METHODS: An 18-question survey was distributed to regional anesthesiology fellowship program directors in the USA. The survey aimed to describe residency and fellowship program demographics, modalities of simulation used, use of simulation for assessment, and limitations to simulation use. RESULTS: Forty-two of 77 (54.5%) fellowship directors responded to the survey. Eighty per cent of respondents with residency training programs utilized simulation for regional anesthesiology education, while simulation was used for 66.7% of fellowship programs. The most common modalities of simulation were gel phantom models (residency: 80.0%, fellowship: 52.4%) and live model scanning (residency: 50.0%, fellowship: 42.9%). Only 12.5% of residency programs and 7.1% of fellowship programs utilized simulation for assessment of skills. The most common greatest limitation to simulation use was simulator availability (28.6%) and funding (21.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Simulation use for education is common within regional anesthesiology training programs, but rarely used for assessment. Funding and simulator availability are the most common limitations to simulation use. © American Society of Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine 2019. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Keywords:
anesthesia; conduction; education; graduate; medical; simulation training
Year: 2019
PMID： 31527159 DOI： 10.1136/rapm-2019-100719
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reg Anesth Pain Med ISSN： 1098-7339 Impact factor: 6.288