Wilkins, Parvathi

Abstract Purpose Supervisors may be prone to implicit (unintentional) bias when granting procedural autonomy to trainees due to the subjectivity of autonomy decisions. The authors aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the differences in perceptions of procedural autonomy granted to physician trainees based on gender and/or race. Method MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched (search date: January 5, 2022) for studies reporting quantitative gender- or race-based differences in perceptions of procedural autonomy of physician trainees. Reviewers worked in duplicate for article selection and data abstraction. Primary measures of interest were self-reported and observer-rated procedural autonomy. Meta-analysis pooled differences in perceptions of procedural autonomy based on trainee gender. Results The search returned 2,714 articles, of which 16 were eligible for inclusion. These reported data for 6,109 trainees (median, 90 per study) and 2,763 supervisors (median, 54 per study). No studies investigated differences in perceptions of autonomy based on race. In meta-analysis of disparities between genders in autonomy ratings (positive number favoring female trainees), pooled standardized mean differences were −0.12 (95% confidence interval [CI], −0.19 to −0.04; P = .003; n = 10 studies) for trainee self-rated autonomy and −0.05 (95% CI, −0.11 to 0.01; P = .07; n = 9 studies) for supervisor ratings of autonomy. Conclusions Limited evidence suggests that female trainees perceived that they received less procedural autonomy than did males. Further research exploring the degree of gender- and race-based differences in procedural autonomy, and factors that influence these differences is warranted.

Abstract Purpose The Optimizing Performance Through Intrinsic Motivation and Attention for Learning (OPTIMAL) theory postulates that directing attention to the intended movement effect or outcome (external focus) is more effective than directing attention to the internal body motion or body part (internal focus). This study compared external versus internal focus of attention as novice students learned ultrasound-guided peripheral cannulation. The authors hypothesized that conditions promoting an external (vs internal) focus of attention would result in better performance on immediate and delayed (retention) testing. Method The authors conducted a randomized, experimental study from October 2022 to February 2023 comparing external and internal focus using ultrasound-guided peripheral venous cannulation followed by practice using an ultrasound training block. Undergraduate health science students performed 4 practice trials with instructions to focus on the needle tip (external focus) or their hands (internal focus), followed by immediate and delayed (retention) assessment 2 weeks later. The primary outcome was time to successful cannulation. Results were compared using Kaplan-Meier curves and parametric survival analysis regression (accelerated failure time) models. Results Seventy participants completed the immediate assessment. The external focus group completed successful cannulation a mean of 2.33 times faster (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.47–3.67; P < .001) than those in the internal focus group (median time, 12.0 vs 29.5 seconds). Results also favored the external focus group during practice, with the external focus group successfully completing the task a mean of 1.83 times faster (95% CI, 1.04–3.21; P = .04) than the internal focus group. In the retention assessment, the external focus group successfully completed the task a mean of 2.37 times faster (95% CI, 1.19–4.74; P = .02) than the internal focus group. Conclusions External focus of attention compared with internal focus of attention improves medical motor skill learning in novice learners.

Background: We aimed to assess the effect of surgeons’ shunting practice and shunt use on the early outcomes of carotid endarterectomy (CEA) in recently symptomatic patients. Methods: We conducted a retrospective observational study based on a multicenter national prospective database. The Vascular Quality Initiative database (2010–2019) was queried for CEAs performed within 14 days after an ipsilateral stroke or transient ischemic attack. Surgeons were gauged as routine shunters if they shunted in >95% of CEAs, otherwise were classified as selective shunters. In-hospital stroke and death rates were compared between routine and selective shunters, stratifying by type of index event (transient ischemic attack versus stroke) and timing of CEA (≤2 versus >2 days). Results: Thirteen thousand four hundred sixty-nine CEAs were performed after a transient ischemic attack (43%) or stroke (57%), 3186 (24%) by routine shunters, and 10 283 (76%) by selective shunters. Comparing routine and selective shunters, in-hospital stroke (1.9% versus 2.4%; P =0.09) and death (0.4% versus 0.5%; P =0.73) rates were similar. A lower stroke rate (1.5% versus 4.2%; P =0.02) was achieved by routine shunters for CEA performed <2 days after an ischemic stroke. Among selective shunters, a higher stroke rate occurred in case of shunt use (2.9% versus 2.3%; P <0.01), mainly due to cases presenting with stroke (3.5% versus 2.4%; P <0.01) but not transient ischemic attack (1.8% versus 1.5%; P =0.57). Awake anesthesia was adopted in 7.8% of cases by selective shunters and in 0.8% by routine shunters, without impact on the perioperative stroke rate (1.8% versus 2.3%; P =0.349). Conclusions: In this large national cohort, the overall outcomes of CEA were similar between routine and selective shunters. A lower postoperative stroke rate was achieved by routine shunters in CEA performed <2 days after an ischemic stroke. Among selective shunters, intraoperatively indicated shunting determined an increased stroke rate, likely due to intraoperative hypoperfusion. These data may guide the decision regarding timing of CEA and shunting intention in symptomatic patients.