Suresh, Santhanam

This practice guideline addresses perioperative pain management using local and regional anesthesia for cardiothoracic, mastectomy, and abdominal surgery in adults and children. For adults, the American Society of Anesthesiologists (Schaumburg, Illinois) Task Force on Perioperative Pain Management strongly recommends fascial plane blocks to reduce pain and/or opioid requirements in the first 24 h postoperatively for open cardiothoracic, abdominal, retroperitoneal, and pelvic surgeries and mastectomy. Fascial plane blocks are also recommended in adults to reduce pain and/or opioid requirements after minimally invasive abdominal procedures. The Task Force conditionally recommends use of fascial plane blocks for minimally invasive cardiothoracic surgeries and open hernia repair to reduce pain in the first 24 h postoperatively. For children, the Task Force strongly recommends use of fascial plane blocks to reduce pain/and or opioid use after open cardiac or thoracic surgeries. Fascial plane blocks are conditionally recommended to reduce pain the first 24 h in children undergoing open hernia repair. Overall, data analysis for this practice guideline was limited by low methodologic quality, inconsistencies in outcome measurements, and small sample sizes from individual centers. Future research in regional anesthesia and analgesia needs to address these pervasive limitations.

Neurologic complications associated with regional anesthesia and pain medicine practice are extremely rare. The ASRA Practice Advisory on Neurologic Complications in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine addresses the etiology, differential diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of these complications. This Advisory does not focus on hemorrhagic and infectious complications, because they have been addressed by other recent ASRA Practice Advisories. The current Practice Advisory offers recommendations to aid in the understanding and potential limitation of neurologic complications that may arise during the practice of regional anesthesia and pain medicine.

Pediatric regional anesthesia offers significant benefits, yet its adoption faces barriers, including perceived overcomplexity. This study aimed to identify and establish a set of core, high-value, low-complexity nerve blocks to improve perioperative pain management in pediatric patients. A four-round modified Delphi consensus study was conducted with an international panel of pediatric and regional anesthesia experts. An initial long list of regional techniques was compiled by the Steering Committee and refined through iterative input. Panelists rated each technique on a 10-point Likert scale for importance. Consensus was defined as ≥75% of panelists assigning a mean importance score of ≥8. Techniques receiving 50%–74% agreement were categorized as having strong agreement and considered for inclusion. The final selection was confirmed through a virtual roundtable discussion. Thirty-three experts representing 12 pediatric and regional societies participated. Consensus was reached on six regional techniques, with strong agreement (*) on two additional techniques, identifying eight core pediatric regional anesthesia blocks: supraclavicular brachial plexus block, rectus sheath block, transverse abdominis plane block*, suprainguinal fascia iliaca block*, femoral nerve block, adductor canal block, popliteal sciatic nerve block, and landmark-based caudal block. This consensus-driven framework defines a core set of pediatric regional anesthesia techniques that balance clinical effectiveness, feasibility, and accessibility. These findings provide a practical entry point for practitioners looking to incorporate pediatric regional anesthesia into their practice, regardless of prior experience. Future efforts should focus on standardized training, implementation research, and policy initiatives to support widespread adoption and improve perioperative pain management in children globally.

Introduction The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) offers descriptions of competencies and milestones but does not provide standardized assessments to track trainee competency. Entrustable professional activities (EPAs) and special assessments (SAs) are emerging methods to assess the level of competency obtained by regional anesthesiology and acute pain medicine (RAAPM) fellows. Methods A panel of RAAPM physicians with experience in education and competency assessment and one medical student were recruited to participate in a modified Delphi method with iterative rounds to reach consensus on: a list of EPAs, SAs, and procedural skills; detailed definitions for each EPA and SA; a mapping of the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones; and a target level of entrustment for graduating US RAAPM fellows for each EPA and procedural skill. A gap analysis was performed and a heat map was created to cross-check the EPAs and SAs to the ACGME milestones. Results Participants in EPA and SA development included 19 physicians and 1 medical student from 18 different programs. The Delphi rounds yielded a final list of 23 EPAs, a defined entrustment scale, mapping of the EPAs to ACGME milestones, and graduation targets. A list of 73 procedural skills and 7 SAs were similarly developed. Discussion A list of 23 RAAPM EPAs, 73 procedural skills, and 7 SAs were created using a rigorous methodology to reach consensus. This framework can be utilized to help assess RAAPM fellows in the USA for competency and allow for meaningful performance feedback.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA’s staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30–0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE ( r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25–0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE ( r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10–0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

With its first administration of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate this type of assessment into its high-stakes certification examination system. The fundamental rationale for the ABA’s introduction of the OSCE is to include an assessment that allows candidates for board certification to demonstrate what they actually “do” in domains relevant to clinical practice. Inherent in this rationale is that the OSCE will capture competencies not well assessed in the current written and oral examinations—competencies that will allow the ABA to judge whether a candidate meets the standards expected for board certification more properly. This special article describes the ABA’s journey from initial conceptualization through first administration of the OSCE, including the format of the OSCE, the process for scenario development, the standardized patient program that supports OSCE administration, examiner training, scoring, and future assessment of reliability, validity, and impact of the OSCE. This information will be beneficial to both those involved in the initial certification process, such as residency graduate candidates and program directors, and others contemplating the use of high-stakes summative OSCE assessments.