High-fidelity patient simulation (HFPS) has been hypothesized as a modality for assessing competency of knowledge and skill in patient simulation, but uniform methods for HFPS performance assessment (PA) have not yet been completely achieved. Anesthesiology as a field founded the HFPS discipline and also leads in its PA. This project reviews the types, quality, and designated purpose of HFPS PA tools in anesthesiology. We used the systematic review method and systematically reviewed anesthesiology literature referenced in PubMed to assess the quality and reliability of available PA tools in HFPS. Of 412 articles identified, 50 met our inclusion criteria. Seventy seven percent of studies have been published since 2000; more recent studies demonstrated higher quality. Investigators reported a variety of test construction and validation methods. The most commonly reported test construction methods included "modified Delphi Techniques" for item selection, reliability measurement using inter-rater agreement, and intra-class correlations between test items or subtests. Modern test theory, in particular generalizability theory, was used in nine (18%) of studies. Test score validity has been addressed in multiple investigations and shown a significant improvement in reporting accuracy. However the assessment of predicative has been low across the majority of studies. Usability and practicality of testing occasions and tools was only anecdotally reported. To more completely comply with the gold standards for PA design, both shared experience of experts and recognition of test construction standards, including reliability and validity measurements, instrument piloting, rater training, and explicit identification of the purpose and proposed use of the assessment tool, are required.
Anesthesiology ; Humans ; Patient Simulation ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Personnel

Background: The goal of preoperative fasting is to prevent pulmonary aspiration during general anesthesia. Fasting times are often prolonged leading to patient discomfort and risk for adverse events. This retrospective quality improvement survey evaluated effective nil-per-os (NPO) times and causes for prolonged NPO times with the aim to suggest improvement strategies by a newly founded fasting task force. Methods: Data from all electronic anesthesia records from 2019 at our institution were reviewed for fasting times. Our NPO instructions follow American Society of Anesthesiology guidelines and are calculated based on the patient’s arrival time (90 min before OR time). Primary outcome was the effective NPO time for clear liquids, secondary outcomes were incidence of delays and the parental compliance with the NPO instructions. Data are presented as median (interquartile range). Results: 9,625 cases were included in the analysis. NPO time was documented in 72.1% with a median effective NPO time of 7:13 h (7:36). OR in room times were documented in 72.8%, 2,075 (29.5%; median time 0:10 h [0:21]) were earlier and 4,939 (70.5%; median time 0:29 h [0:54]) were later than scheduled. Parental NPO compliance showed a median deviation for clear liquid intake of 0:55 h (8:30). Conclusions This study revealed that effective NPO times were longer than current ASA guidelines. Contributing causes include case delays and parental non-compliance to NPO instructions. Thus, task force recommendations include change NPO instruction calculations to scheduled OR time versus arrival time, and encourage parents to give their child clear liquids at the instructed time.