Torsher, Laurence C.

Anesthesiologists are sometimes slow to adopt new technologies despite proven benefits. The authors undertook to understand community anesthesiologists’ perspectives and practices regarding neuromuscular monitoring and reversal. Specifically, they sought to generate evidence for why some guidance-congruent practices— i.e. , quantitative train-of-four monitoring, ulnar nerve stimulation, and evidence-based reversal—remain inconsistently adopted despite robust evidence of patient harm from residual neuromuscular blockade and decades of effort to improve adoption. Thirty-six U.S. community anesthesiologists underwent a detailed qualitative cognitive interview. Analysis revealed four clinician archetypes whose neuromuscular monitoring and reversal practices are shaped by identifiable individual and practice-related biases and device- and system-level barriers. Perceived confidence in sugammadex efficacy was frequently cited as a rationale for omitting quantitative neuromuscular monitoring. The authors propose a research and implementation action agenda to close the evidence-to-practice gap in neuromuscular monitoring and reversal.

Effective decision-making in crisis events is challenging due to time pressure, uncertainty, and dynamic decisional environments. We conducted a systematic literature review in PubMed and PsycINFO, identifying 32 empiric research papers that examine how trained professionals make naturalistic decisions under pressure. We used structured qualitative analysis methods to extract key themes. The studies explored different aspects of decision-making across multiple domains. The majority (19) focused on healthcare; military, fire and rescue, oil installation, and aviation domains were also represented. We found appreciable variability in research focus, methodology, and decision-making descriptions. We identified five main themes: (1) decision-making strategy, (2) time pressure, (3) stress, (4) uncertainty, and (5) errors. Recognition-primed decision-making (RPD) strategies were reported in all studies that analyzed this aspect. Analytical strategies were also prominent, appearing more frequently in contexts with less time pressure and explicit training to generate multiple explanations. Practitioner experience, time pressure, stress, and uncertainty were major influencing factors. Professionals must adapt to the time available, types of uncertainty, and individual skills when making decisions in high-risk situations. Improved understanding of these decisional factors can inform evidence-based enhancements to training, technology, and process design.

Abstract Introduction: Even physicians who routinely work in complex, dynamic practices may be unprepared to optimally manage challenging critical events. High-fidelity simulation can realistically mimic critical clinically relevant events, however the reliability and validity of simulation-based assessment scores for practicing physicians has not been established.Methods: Standardised complex simulation scenarios were developed and administered to board-certified, practicing anesthesiologists who volunteered to participate in an assessment study during formative maintenance of certification activities. A subset of the study population agreed to participate as the primary responder in a second scenario for this study. The physicians were assessed independently by trained raters on both teamwork/behavioural and technical performance measures. Analysis using Generalisability and Decision studies were completed for the two scenarios with two raters.Results: The behavioural score was not more reliable than the technical score. With two raters > 20 scenarios would be required to achieve a reliability estimate of 0.7. Increasing the number of raters for a given scenario would have little effect on reliability.Conclusions: The performance of practicing physicians on simulated critical events may be highly context-specific. Realistic simulation-based assessment for practicing physicians is resource-intensive and may be best-suited for individualized formative feedback. More importantly, aggregate data from a population of participants may have an even higher impact if used to identify skill or knowledge gaps to be addressed by training programs and inform continuing education improvements across the profession.

Abstract Objective: Dyad learning has been shown to be an effective tool for teaching procedural skills, but little is known about how dyad learning may impact the stress, anxiety, and cognitive load that a student experiences when learning in this manner. In this pilot study, we investigate the relationship between dyad training on stress, anxiety, cognitive load, and performance in a simulated bradycardia scenario. Methods: Forty-one fourth-year medical school trainees were randomized as dyads (n=24) or individuals (n=17) for an education session on Day 1. Reassessment occurred on Day 4 and was completed as individuals for all trainees. Primary outcomes were cognitive load (Paas scale), stress (Cognitive Appraisal Ratio), and anxiety levels (abbreviated State-Trait Anxiety Inventory). Secondary outcomes were time-based performance metrics. Results: On Day 1 we observed significant differences for change in anxiety and stress measured before and after the training scenario between groups. Individuals compared to dyads had larger mean increases in anxiety, (19.6 versus 7.6 on 80-point scale, p=0.02) and stress ratio (1.8 versus 0.9, p=0.045). On the Day 4 post-intervention assessment, no significant differences were observed between groups. Secondary outcomes were significant for shorter time to diagnosis of bradycardia (p=0.01) and time to initiation of pacing (p=0.04) in the dyad group on Day 1. On Day 4, only time to recognizing the indication for pacing was significantly shorter for individual training (Hazard ratio [HR] = 2.26, p = 0.02).Conclusions: Dyad training results in lower stress and anxiety levels with similar performance compared to individual training.

Abstract Introduction: Even physicians who routinely work in complex, dynamic practices may be unprepared to optimally manage challenging critical events. High-fidelity simulation can realistically mimic critical clinically relevant events, however the reliability and validity of simulation-based assessment scores for practicing physicians has not been established.Methods: Standardized complex simulation scenarios were developed and administered to board-certified, practicing anesthesiologists who volunteered to participate in an assessment study during formative maintenance of certification activities. A subset of the study population agreed to participate as the primary responder in a second scenario for this study. The physicians were assessed independently by trained raters on both teamwork/behavioral and technical performance measures. Analysis using Generalizability and Decision studies were completed for the two scenarios with two raters.Results: The technical score was not more reliable than the behavioral score. With two raters > 20 scenarios would be required to achieve a reliability estimate of 0.7. Increasing the number of raters would have little effect on reliability.Discussion: The performance of practicing physicians on simulated critical events may be highly context-specific. Realistic simulation-based assessment for practicing physicians is resource-intensive and may be best-suited for individualized formative feedback. Moreover, aggregate data from a population of participants may yield even higher impact if used to identify skill or knowledge gaps to be addressed by training programs and continuing education improvements across the profession.

Background: Intraoperative cardiac arrest (ICA) has a reported frequency of 1 in 10,000 anesthetics but has a much higher estimated incidence in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Single-center studies of ICA in OLT are limited by small sample size that prohibits multivariable regression analysis of risks. METHODS: Utilizing data from 7 academic medical centers, we performed a retrospective, observational study of 5296 adult liver transplant recipients (18–80 years old) between 2000 and 2017 to identify the rate of ICA, associated risk factors, and outcomes. RESULTS: ICA occurred in 196 cases (3.7% 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2–4.2) and mortality occurred in 62 patients (1.2%). The intraoperative mortality rate was 31.6% in patients who experienced ICA. In a multivariable generalized linear mixed model, ICA was associated with body mass index (BMI) <20 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.04, 95% CI, 1.05–3.98; P = .0386), BMI ≥40 (2.16 [1.12–4.19]; P = .022), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score: (MELD 30–39: 1.75 [1.09–2.79], P = .02; MELD ≥40: 2.73 [1.53–4.85], P = .001), postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) (3.83 [2.75–5.34], P < .001), living donors (2.13 [1.16–3.89], P = .014), and reoperation (1.87 [1.13–3.11], P = .015). Overall 30-day and 1-year mortality were 4.18% and 11.0%, respectively. After ICA, 30-day and 1-year mortality were 43.9% and 52%, respectively, compared to 2.6% and 9.3% without ICA. CONCLUSIONS: We established a 3.7% incidence of ICA and a 1.2% incidence of intraoperative mortality in liver transplantation and confirmed previously identified risk factors for ICA including BMI, MELD score, PRS, and reoperation and identified new risk factors including living donor and length of surgery in this multicenter retrospective cohort. ICA, while rare, is associated with high intraoperative mortality, and future research must focus on therapy to reduce the incidence of ICA.