Achieving Lumbar Epidural Block Competency in Inexperienced Trainees after a Structured Epidural Teaching Model: A Randomized, Single Blind, Prospective Comparison of CUSUM Learning Curves.
Journal
Anesthesiology research and practice
ISSN: 1687-6962
Titre abrégé: Anesthesiol Res Pract
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101532982
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2022
2022
Historique:
received:
20
06
2022
accepted:
09
08
2022
entrez:
12
9
2022
pubmed:
13
9
2022
medline:
13
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this randomized, prospective study was to investigate whether the use of the structured epidural teaching model (SETM) may affect the learning curve for lumbar epidural block in novice trainees when compared with a standard teaching module. There is a paucity of literature regarding the efficacy of teaching epidural blocks and comparisons between the different educational approaches. Forty-four PGY3 anesthesia trainees were randomized to receive (study group) or to not receive (control group) the SDM (structured didactic model) before the beginning of their 6 months clinical practice rotation in labor and delivery suites. A CUSUM learning curve was built for every trainee. The scores were assigned by the staff instructor, who was unaware of the group to which the trainee belonged. The number of subjects who achieved an improvement in performance was 8 trainees from the control group and 14 from the study group. The probability of achieving an improvement was higher ( We have demonstrated that the use of the structured epidural teaching model (SETM) may improve the learning curve (CUSUM) for lumbar epidural block in novice, entirely inexperienced, anesthesia trainees.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36092854
doi: 10.1155/2022/1738783
pmc: PMC9463033
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
1738783Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 Marco Scorzoni et al.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
GC is a scientific consultant for Milestone Scientific Inc. All the other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Références
Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2018 Jun 26;2018:4710263
pubmed: 30046305
Anesthesiology. 2002 Jan;96(1):5-9
pubmed: 11752994
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Dec;26(6):726-31
pubmed: 24126692
Can J Anaesth. 2003 Aug-Sep;50(7):694-8
pubmed: 12944444
Anesth Analg. 2002 Aug;95(2):411-6, table of contents
pubmed: 12145063
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2011 Jul-Aug;36(4):336-42
pubmed: 21654553
Anesth Analg. 2019 May;128(5):999-1004
pubmed: 30286007
Anesth Analg. 1984 Jun;63(6):603-7
pubmed: 6731880
Int J Qual Health Care. 2000 Oct;12(5):433-8
pubmed: 11079224
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2006 Jul-Aug;31(4):304-10
pubmed: 16857550
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2009 May-Jun;34(3):229-32
pubmed: 19587620
Int J Obstet Anesth. 2020 Nov;44:33-39
pubmed: 32736124
Med Educ. 2008 Apr;42(4):338-49
pubmed: 18338987
Br J Anaesth. 1995 Dec;75(6):805-9
pubmed: 8672339
Stat Med. 2021 Mar 15;40(6):1400-1413
pubmed: 33316849
Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2019 Sep 12;2019:3804743
pubmed: 31611917
Clin Teach. 2010 Dec;7(4):257-61
pubmed: 21134202
Korean J Anesthesiol. 2017 Apr;70(2):196-202
pubmed: 28367291
Med Teach. 2003 Jan;25(1):54-62
pubmed: 14741860