M M Kurrek1, K J Fish. 1. Canadian Simulation Centre for Human Performance and Crisis Management Training, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This two-part study was performed to identify and address anaesthetists' concerns regarding anaesthesia simulation and to evaluate the response of practitioners to simulation-based Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management Training (ACRM). METHODS: First, 150 survey questionnaires were distributed to participants of the Anaesthesia Practice '94 meeting in Toronto and to staff and resident anaesthetists at the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre. In the second part of the study, 35 anaesthetists from the Toronto area who participated in Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management (ACRM) workshops at the Canadian Simulation Centre completed an anonymous exit evaluation questionnaire. RESULTS: Among staff anaesthetists (n = 42), 19% of the surveyed respondents had never heard about anaesthesia simulation, whereas all residents (n = 17) had heard of, or seen an anaesthesia simulator. Horizontal numerical scale ratings (from 1-10, with 10 being extremely supportive) indicated support for the purchase of a simulator (8.3 +/- 2.0 for staff, 9.2 +/- 1.1 for residents). Staff and residents anticipated substantial anxiety while training with a simulator (6.8 +/- 2.4 and 7.6 +/- 1.4 respectively, with 10 indicating extreme anxiety). Participants in the ACRM workshops at the Canadian Simulation Centre enjoyed the course (1.2 +/- 0.6, on a scale form 1 through 5, with 1 indicating total support and 5 representing no support), felt that it would be beneficial to most anaesthetists (1.2 +/- 0.5) and should be taken, on average, every 18 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the majority of respondents have not been exposed to anaesthesia simulators, they appear to support their use in education strongly. Whereas substantial anxiety could delay the introduction of simulation based education, participants of ACRM workshops enjoy the courses and perceive them as very educational.
PURPOSE: This two-part study was performed to identify and address anaesthetists' concerns regarding anaesthesia simulation and to evaluate the response of practitioners to simulation-based Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management Training (ACRM). METHODS: First, 150 survey questionnaires were distributed to participants of the Anaesthesia Practice '94 meeting in Toronto and to staff and resident anaesthetists at the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre. In the second part of the study, 35 anaesthetists from the Toronto area who participated in Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management (ACRM) workshops at the Canadian Simulation Centre completed an anonymous exit evaluation questionnaire. RESULTS: Among staff anaesthetists (n = 42), 19% of the surveyed respondents had never heard about anaesthesia simulation, whereas all residents (n = 17) had heard of, or seen an anaesthesia simulator. Horizontal numerical scale ratings (from 1-10, with 10 being extremely supportive) indicated support for the purchase of a simulator (8.3 +/- 2.0 for staff, 9.2 +/- 1.1 for residents). Staff and residents anticipated substantial anxiety while training with a simulator (6.8 +/- 2.4 and 7.6 +/- 1.4 respectively, with 10 indicating extreme anxiety). Participants in the ACRM workshops at the Canadian Simulation Centre enjoyed the course (1.2 +/- 0.6, on a scale form 1 through 5, with 1 indicating total support and 5 representing no support), felt that it would be beneficial to most anaesthetists (1.2 +/- 0.5) and should be taken, on average, every 18 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the majority of respondents have not been exposed to anaesthesia simulators, they appear to support their use in education strongly. Whereas substantial anxiety could delay the introduction of simulation based education, participants of ACRM workshops enjoy the courses and perceive them as very educational.