Publication:
Non-Fellowship regional anesthesia training and assessment: An international Delphi study on a consensus curriculum

dc.contributor.authorAlwin Chuanen_US
dc.contributor.authorBahaven Jeyaratnamen_US
dc.contributor.authorShah Fathilen_US
dc.contributor.authorLeonardo H.C. Ferraroen_US
dc.contributor.authorAneet Kessowen_US
dc.contributor.authorYean Chin Limen_US
dc.contributor.authorMichael J. O'Rourkeen_US
dc.contributor.authorVrushali Pondeen_US
dc.contributor.authorJulien Raften_US
dc.contributor.authorArthur Seguradoen_US
dc.contributor.authorSuwimon Tangwiwaten_US
dc.contributor.authorAlexandra Torborgen_US
dc.contributor.authorLloyd Turbitten_US
dc.contributor.authorAndrew K. Lansdownen_US
dc.contributor.authorEdward R. Marianoen_US
dc.contributor.authorColin J.L. McCartneyen_US
dc.contributor.authorAlan J.R. MacFarlaneen_US
dc.contributor.authorLouis Y.H. Moken_US
dc.contributor.authorSteven L. Orebaughen_US
dc.contributor.authorAmit Pawaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSanthanam Sureshen_US
dc.contributor.authorJ. Balavenkat Subramanianen_US
dc.contributor.authorThomas Volken_US
dc.contributor.authorGlenn Woodworthen_US
dc.contributor.authorReva Ramloganen_US
dc.contributor.otherL'Hôpital d'Ottawaen_US
dc.contributor.otherStanford University School of Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherBelfast Health and Social Care Trusten_US
dc.contributor.otherVA Palo Alto Health Care Systemen_US
dc.contributor.otherPrince of Wales Hospital Hong Kongen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversitätsklinikum des Saarlandes Medizinische Fakultät der Universität des Saarlandesen_US
dc.contributor.otherRoyal Prince Alfred Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherGlasgow Royal Infirmaryen_US
dc.contributor.otherLoyola University Medical Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherOregon Health & Science Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversidade Federal de São Pauloen_US
dc.contributor.otherVA Medical Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherChangi General Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Centeren_US
dc.contributor.otherUNSW Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of KwaZulu-Natalen_US
dc.contributor.otherNorthwestern Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherHospital Sirio-Libanêsen_US
dc.contributor.otherSt Thomas' Hospitalen_US
dc.contributor.otherUniversity of Cape Townen_US
dc.contributor.otherHinduja Health Care Surgical and Research Centreen_US
dc.contributor.otherGleneagles Hospital Medini Johoren_US
dc.contributor.otherInstitut de Cancérologie de Lorraineen_US
dc.contributor.otherGanga Medical Centre and Hospitals Pvt Ltden_US
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-04T09:11:40Z
dc.date.available2022-08-04T09:11:40Z
dc.date.issued2021-10-01en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground and objectives While there are several published recommendations and guidelines for trainees undertaking subspecialty Fellowships in regional anesthesia, a similar document describing a core regional anesthesia curriculum for non-fellowship trainees is less well defined. We aimed to produce an international consensus for the training and teaching of regional anesthesia that is applicable for the majority of worldwide anesthesiologists. Methods This anonymous, electronic Delphi study was conducted over two rounds and distributed to current and immediate past (within 5 years) directors of regional anesthesia training worldwide. The steering committee formulated an initial list of items covering nerve block techniques, learning objectives and skills assessment and volume of practice, relevant to a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Participants scored these items in order of importance using a 10-point Likert scale, with free-text feedback. Strong consensus items were defined as highest importance (score ≥8) by ≥70% of all participants. Results 469 participants/586 invitations (80.0% response) scored in round 1, and 402/469 participants (85.7% response) scored in round 2. Participants represented 66 countries. Strong consensus was reached for 8 core peripheral and neuraxial blocks and 17 items describing learning objectives and skills assessment. Volume of practice for peripheral blocks was uniformly 16-20 blocks per anatomical region, while ≥50 neuraxial blocks were considered minimum. Conclusions This international consensus study provides specific information for designing a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Implementation of a standardized curriculum has benefits for patient care through improving quality of training and quality of nerve blocks.en_US
dc.identifier.citationRegional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Vol.46, No.10 (2021), 867-873en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/rapm-2021-102934en_US
dc.identifier.issn15328651en_US
dc.identifier.issn10987339en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85111146135en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/77826
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85111146135&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.titleNon-Fellowship regional anesthesia training and assessment: An international Delphi study on a consensus curriculumen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85111146135&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections