Sex and gender, among other equity-related characteristics, influence the process of care and patients’ outcomes. Currently, the extent to which these characteristics are considered in the anesthesia literature remains unknown. This study assesses their incorporation in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on anesthesia-related interventions, for both patients and healthcare providers. This is a cross-sectional analysis using an existing dataset derived from the anesthesia literature. The dataset originated from a scoping review searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews. RCTs investigating the effect of anesthesia-related interventions on mortality for adults undergoing surgery were included. Equity outcome measures were recorded for both patients and providers and assessed for inclusion in the study design, reporting of results, and analysis of intervention effects. Three-hundred sixty-one RCTs (n = 144,674) were included. Most RCTs (91%) reported patient sex/gender, with 58% of patients identified as male. There were 139 studies (39%), where 70% or more of the sample was male, compared to just 14 studies (4%), where 70% or more of the sample was female. Only 10 studies (3%) analyzed results by patient sex/gender, with one reporting a significant effect. There was substantial variation in how age was reported, although nearly all studies (98%) reported some measure of age. For healthcare providers, equity-related information was never available. Better consideration of sex/gender and additional health equity parameters for both patients and providers in RCTs is needed to improve evidence quality, and ultimately, patient care and outcome.

PURPOSE: In July 2015, the University of Ottawa introduced a competency-based medical education (CBME) postgraduate program for anesthesia. Prior to program implementation, this study aimed to identify Canadian anesthesiology program directors perceptions of CBME and residents' opinion on how the program should be designed and perceived consequences of CBME. METHODS: This two-phase, qualitative study included semi-structured interviews with Canadian anesthesia program directors (Phase I) and a focus group interview with residents enrolled in the University of Ottawa time-based anesthesia program (Phase II). Both phases sought to gauge participant's perceptions of CBME. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed. RESULTS: Data was combined to protect anonymity of the six participants (three program directors and three residents). Participants spoke about the perceived advantages of CBME, the need to establish definitions, and challenges to a CBME program highlighting logistical factors, implications for trainees and the role assessment plays in CBME. CONCLUSION: These findings will inform CBME implementation strategies in anesthesia programs across the country, and may assist other residency programs in the design of their programs. Furthermore, our findings may help identify potential challenges and issues that other postgraduate specialties may face as they transition to a CBME model.
Anesthesia* ; Anesthesiology ; Anonyms and Pseudonyms ; Canada* ; Competency-Based Education ; Education, Medical* ; Focus Groups ; Internship and Residency* ; Needs Assessment*

No abstract available.
Positive-Pressure Respiration

No abstract available.
Bronchoscopy ; Intubation

PURPOSE: High-fidelity simulation training is effective for learning crisis resource management (CRM) skills, but cost is a major barrier to implementing high-fidelity simulation training into the curriculum. The aim of this study was to examine the cost-effectiveness of self-debriefing and traditional instructor debriefing in CRM training programs and to calculate the minimum willingness-to-pay (WTP) value when one debriefing type becomes more cost-effective than the other. METHODS: This study used previous data from a randomized controlled trial involving 50 anesthesiology residents in Canada. Each participant managed a pretest crisis scenario. Participants who were randomized to self-debrief used the video of their pretest scenario with no instructor present during their debriefing. Participants from the control group were debriefed by a trained instructor using the video of their pretest scenario. Participants individually managed a post-test simulated crisis scenario. We compared the cost and effectiveness of self-debriefing versus instructor debriefing using net benefit regression. The cost-effectiveness estimate was reported as the incremental net benefit and the uncertainty was presented using a cost-effectiveness acceptability curve. RESULTS: Self-debriefing costs less than instructor debriefing. As the WTP increased, the probability that self-debriefing would be cost-effective decreased. With a WTP ≤Can$200, the self-debriefing program was cost-effective. However, when effectiveness was priced higher than cost-savings and with a WTP >Can$300, instructor debriefing was the preferred alternative. CONCLUSION: With a lower WTP (≤Can$200), self-debriefing was cost-effective in CRM simulation training when compared to instructor debriefing. This study provides evidence regarding cost-effectiveness that will inform decision-makers and clinical educators in their decision-making process, and may help to optimize resource allocation in education.
Anesthesiology ; Canada* ; Cost-Benefit Analysis* ; Curriculum ; Education ; Learning ; Resource Allocation ; Simulation Training ; Uncertainty

Background: Although peer-assisted learning is known to be effective for reciprocal learning in medical education, it has been understudied in simulation. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of peer-led compared to instructor-led debriefing for non-technical skill development in simulated crisis scenarios. Methods: Sixty-one undergraduate medical students were randomized into the control group (instructor-led debriefing) or an intervention group (peer debriefer or peer debriefee group). After the pre-test simulation, the participants underwent two more simulation scenarios, each followed by a debriefing session. After the second debriefing session, the participants underwent an immediate post-test simulation on the same day and a retention post-test simulation two months later. Non-technical skills for the pre-test, immediate post-test, and retention tests were assessed by two blinded raters using the Ottawa Global Rating Scale (OGRS). Results: The participants’ non-technical skill performance significantly improved in all groups from the pre-test to the immediate post-test, with changes in the OGRS scores of 15.0 (95% CI [11.4, 18.7]) in the instructor-led group, 15.3 (11.5, 19.0) in the peer-debriefer group, and 17.6 (13.9, 21.4) in the peer-debriefee group. No significant differences in performance were found, after adjusting for the year of medical school training, among debriefing modalities (P = 0.147) or between the immediate post-test and retention test (P = 0.358). Conclusions Peer-led debriefing was as effective as instructor-led debriefing at improving undergraduate medical students’ non-technical skill performance in simulated crisis situations. Peer debriefers also improved their simulated clinical skills. The peer debriefing model is a feasible alternative to the traditional, costlier instructor model.