American Board Of Anesthesiology Research Articles

Clinical Knowledge and Reasoning Abilities of AI Large Language Models in Anesthesiology: A Comparative Study on the American Board of Anesthesiology Examination.

Over the past decade, artificial intelligence (AI) has expanded significantly with increased adoption across various industries, including medicine. Recently, AI-based large language models such as Generative Pretrained Transformer-3 (GPT-3), Bard, and Generative Pretrained Transformer-3 (GPT-4) have demonstrated remarkable language capabilities. While previous studies have explored their potential in general medical knowledge tasks, here we assess their clinical knowledge and reasoning abilities in a specialized medical context. We studied and compared the performance of all 3 models on both the written and oral portions of the comprehensive and challenging American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) examination, which evaluates candidates' knowledge and competence in anesthesia practice. Our results reveal that only GPT-4 successfully passed the written examination, achieving an accuracy of 78% on the basic section and 80% on the advanced section. In comparison, the less recent or smaller GPT-3 and Bard models scored 58% and 47% on the basic examination, and 50% and 46% on the advanced examination, respectively. Consequently, only GPT-4 was evaluated in the oral examination, with examiners concluding that it had a reasonable possibility of passing the structured oral examination. Additionally, we observe that these models exhibit varying degrees of proficiency across distinct topics, which could serve as an indicator of the relative quality of information contained in the corresponding training datasets. This may also act as a predictor for determining which anesthesiology subspecialty is most likely to witness the earliest integration with AI. GPT-4 outperformed GPT-3 and Bard on both basic and advanced sections of the written ABA examination, and actual board examiners considered GPT-4 to have a reasonable possibility of passing the real oral examination; these models also exhibit varying degrees of proficiency across distinct topics.

The Flipped Classroom Approach in a Pediatric Anesthesiology Fellowship Curriculum.

Background The flipped classroom approach is well documented to enhance medical education outcomes. Additionally, both the need for online learning materials and the increased demand for medical professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic has made this approach more relevant. The pediatric anesthesiology fellowship curriculum at one institution transitioned from a traditional classroom model to a flipped classroom approach to optimize the educational experience and support learner well-being. Approach Utilizing the American Board of Anesthesiology(ABA)and Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education(ACGME) content outlines, a novel, comprehensive curriculum was developed focusing on core clinical material and board review with the goal of providing structured learning while alleviating the burden of completing board review independently to improve work-life balance and reduce the potential for burnout. Evaluation Graduates of the program from 2017 to 2021 evaluated the flipped classroom structure and its perceived impact on their educational outcomes, wellness, and career development via a one-time, voluntary survey. Results indicated improved participation rates and educational benefits with the flipped classroom structure compared to the traditional structure. Fellowspreferred the flipped classroom approach to the traditional lecture approach (72.2% vs. 27%), and they preferred custom-made prework material to traditional textbooks and articles. Fellows benefited from having more time for personal activities and other scholarly work, as evidenced by open-ended responses. Implications The flipped classroom structure was perceived as beneficial by pediatric anesthesiology fellows because of increased educational engagement, alleviation of academic burden, and improved wellness due to more time for non-academic activities. Further study is needed to optimize and correlate the new curriculum with objective educational outcomes.

Competency-Based Time-Variable Anesthesiology Residency Training: Identification of Problems and Solutions.

Global medical education is gradually moving toward more comprehensive implementations of a competency-based education (CBE) model. Elimination of standard time-based training and adoption of time-variable training (competency-based time-variable training [CB-TVT]) is one of the final stages of implementation of CBE. While CB-TVT has been implemented in some programs outside the United States, residency programs in the United States are still exploring this approach to training. The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) and the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) are encouraging member boards and residency review committees to consider innovative ways programs could implement CB-TVT. The goals of this study were to (1) identify potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training, (2) rank the importance of the problems and the perceived difficulty of solving them, and (3) develop proposed solutions to the identified problems. Study participants were recruited from key stakeholder groups in anesthesiology education, including current or former program directors, department chairs, residents, fellows, American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) board members, ACGME residency review committee members or ACGME leaders, designated institutional officials, residency program coordinators, clinical operations directors, and leaders of large anesthesiology community practice groups. This study was conducted in 2 phases. In phase 1, survey questionnaires were iteratively distributed to participants to identify problems with the implementation of CB-TVT. Participants were also asked to rank the perceived importance and difficulty of each problem and to identify relevant stakeholder groups that would be responsible for solving each problem. In phase 2, surveys focused on identifying potential solutions for problems identified in phase 1. A total of 36 stakeholders identified 39 potential problems, grouped into 7 major categories, with the implementation of CB-TVT in anesthesiology residency training. Of the 39 problems, 19 (48.7%) were marked as important or very important on a 5-point scale and 12 of 19 (63.2%) of the important problems were marked as difficult or very difficult to solve on a 5-point scale. Stakeholders proposed 165 total solutions to the identified problems. CB-TVT is a promising educational model for anesthesiology residency, which potentially results in learner flexibility, individualization of curricula, and utilization of competencies to determine learner advancement. Because of the potential problems with the implementation of CB-TVT, it is important for future pilot implementations of CB-TVT to document realized problems, efficacy of solutions, and effects on educational outcomes to justify the burden of implementing CB-TVT.

Training Anesthesiology Residents to Care for the Traumatically Injured in the United States.

Training and education for trauma anesthesiology have been predicated on 2 primary pathways: learning through peripheral "complex, massive transfusion cases"-an assumption that is flawed due to the unique demands, skills, and knowledge of trauma anesthesiology-or learning through experiential education, which is also incomplete due to its unpredictable and variable exposure. Residents may receive training from senior physicians who may not maintain a trauma-focused continuing medical education. Further compounding the issue is the lack of fellowship-trained clinicians and standardized curricula. The American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) provides a section for trauma education in its Initial Certification in Anesthesiology Content Outline. However, many trauma-related topics also fall under other subspecialties, and the outline excludes "nontechnical" skills. This article focuses on the training of anesthesiology residents and proposes a tier-based approach to teaching the ABA outline by including lectures, simulation, problem-based learning discussions, and case-based discussions that are proctored in conducive environments by knowledgeable facilitators.

Perioperative Medicine: What the Future Can Hold for Anesthesiology.

Perioperative Medicine: What the Future Can Hold for Anesthesiology.

An Introductory Point-of-Care Ultrasound Curriculum for an Anesthesiology Residency Program.

The use of point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a growing trend in the field of anesthesiology. However, formal POCUS curriculums are still not widely implemented in residency programs. As the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education and the American Board of Anesthesiology have both incorporated POCUS into their educational aims and expectations for graduates, we recognized the need for a formal POCUS curriculum for our residency program. We developed and implemented a comprehensive 3-week POCUS curriculum for our first-year anesthesiology residents (CA1s) in the latter half of their academic year. Twenty CA1s participated in this educational activity. The POCUS curriculum spanned seven topics and was given in weekly 2-hour sessions over the course of 3 weeks. Each session was designed with the first hour consisting of a traditional lecture-based presentation followed by live hands-on practice. A pretest on POCUS knowledge was given to every resident before the curriculum, and a posttest and survey were administered afterwards. Every CA1 showed an improvement in their posttest scores. The median scores of the pretest and posttest were 49% and 75%, respectively. Survey results were positive, with all of the CA1s agreeing that the POCUS educational materials were appropriate to their level of training and that their POCUS knowledge and technical skills improved after the curriculum. We have shown that our formal POCUS curriculum improved anesthesiology residents' knowledge as well as resulting in positive views on the implementation of this intervention.

Current challenges faced by transgender and gender-diverse patients and providers in anesthesiology.

Current challenges faced by transgender and gender-diverse patients and providers in anesthesiology.

Programmatic approaches to achieving equity for women in anesthesiology.

Programmatic approaches to achieving equity for women in anesthesiology.

A Call to Action: A Specialty-Specific Course to Support the Next Generation of Clinician Scientists in Anesthesiology.

Clinical production pressure is a significant problem for faculty of anesthesiology departments who seek to remain involved in research. Lack of protected time to dedicate to research and insufficient external funding add to this long-standing issue. Recent trends in funding to the departments of anesthesiology and their academic output validate these concerns. A 2022 study examining National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant recipients associated with anesthesiology departments across 10 years (2011-2020) outlines total awarded funds at $1,676,482,440, with most of the funds awarded to only 10 departments in the United States. Of note, the total 1-year NIH funding in 2021 for academic internal medicine departments was 3 times higher than the 10-year funding of anesthesiology departments. Additionally, American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) diplomats represent a minority (37%) of the anesthesiology researchers obtaining grant funding, with a small number of faculty members receiving a prevalence of monies. Overall, the number of publications per academic anesthesiologist across the United States remains modest as does the impact of the scholarly work. Improving environments in which academic anesthesiologists thrive may be paramount to successful academic productivity. In fact, adding to the lack of academic time is the limited bandwidth of senior academic physicians to mentor and support aspiring physician scientists. Given then the challenges for individual departments and notable successes of specialty-specific collaborative efforts (eg, Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research [FAER]), additional pooled-resource approaches may be necessary to successfully support and develop clinician scientists. It is in this spirit that the leadership of Anesthesia & Analgesia and The Journal of Education in Perioperative Medicine, unified with the Association of University Anesthesiologists, aim to sponsor the Introduction to Clinical Research for Academic Anesthesiologists (ICRAA) Course. Directed toward early career academic anesthesiologists who wish to gain competency specifically in the fundamentals of clinical research and receive mentorship to develop an investigative project, the yearlong course will provide participants with the skills necessary to design research initiatives, ethically direct research teams, successfully communicate ideas with data analysts, and write and submit scientific articles. Additionally, the course, articulated in a series of interactive lectures, mentored activities, and workshops, will teach participants to review articles submitted for publication to medical journals and to critically appraise evidence in published research. It is our hope that this initiative will be of interest to junior faculty of academic anesthesiology departments nationally and internationally.

A Call to Action: A Specialty-Specific Course to Support the Next Generation of Clinician Scientists in Anesthesiology.

Clinical production pressure is a significant problem for faculty of anesthesiology departments who seek to remain involved in research. Lack of protected time to dedicate to research and insufficient external funding add to this long-standing issue. Recent trends in funding to the departments of anesthesiology and their academic output validate these concerns. A 2022 study examining National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant recipients associated with anesthesiology departments across 10 years (2011-2020) outlines total awarded funds at $1,676,482,440, with most of the funds awarded to only 10 departments in the United States. Of note, the total 1-year NIH funding in 2021 for academic internal medicine departments was 3 times higher than the 10-year funding of anesthesiology departments. Additionally, American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) diplomats represent a minority (37%) of the anesthesiology researchers obtaining grant funding, with a small number of faculty members receiving a prevalence of monies. Overall, the number of publications per academic anesthesiologist across the United States remains modest as does the impact of the scholarly work. Improving environments in which academic anesthesiologists thrive may be paramount to successful academic productivity. In fact, adding to the lack of academic time is the limited bandwidth of senior academic physicians to mentor and support aspiring physician scientists. Given then the challenges for individual departments and notable successes of specialty-specific collaborative efforts (eg Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research [FAER]), additional pooled-resource approaches may be necessary to successfully support and develop clinician scientists. It is in this spirit that the leadership of Anesthesia and Analgesia and the Journal of Education in Perioperative Medicine, unified with the Association of University Anesthesiologists, aim to sponsor the Introduction to Clinical Research for Academic Anesthesiologists (ICRAA) Course. Directed toward early career academic anesthesiologists who wish to gain competency specifically in the fundamentals of clinical research and receive mentorship to develop an investigative project, the yearlong course will provide participants with the skills necessary to design research initiatives, ethically direct research teams, successfully communicate ideas with data analysts, and write and submit scientific articles. Additionally, the course, articulated in a series of interactive lectures, mentored activities, and workshops, will teach participants to review articles submitted for publication to medical journals and to critically appraise evidence in published research. It is our hope that this initiative will be of interest to junior faculty of academic anesthesiology departments nationally and internationally.

A Ten-Year Analysis of Recent National Institutes of Health Funding for Anesthesiology Research in United States Medical Schools

The characteristics of recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding to anesthesiology researchers in United States (US) medical schools have not been systematically quantified. NIH funding to cardiac anesthesiologists has also not been estimated. The author conducted an internet-based analysis of NIH awards to anesthesiology researchers from 2011-2020 to identify the types, duration of funding, and amount of grants, and the terminal degree(s), faculty rank, gender, board certification status, and type of appointment of the grant recipients including those with an interest in cardiac anesthesiology. Observational study. Internet analysis. NIH grants recipients. None. NIH grant recipients affiliated with anesthesiology departments were identified from the Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research website. The number of grants, years of support, and total amount of funding were quantified for research project grants (R series), mentored career development awards (K series), and other grants (U and P series) using NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools. The terminal degree(s), faculty rank, gender, and type of appointment of grant recipients were identified using department web pages. American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) certification, National Board of Echocardiography Advanced Perioperative Transesophageal Echocardiography (TEE) certification, and previous or current Foundation for Anesthesia Education and Research (FAER) awards to NIH grant recipients were obtained from each organization's website. A total of 532 researchers received 1250 grants with 3844 cumulative years of funding amounting to $1,676,482,440. R series grants accounted for three-quarters of all funding. PhDs were awarded more than one-half of NIH grants. MDs had lower median numbers of projects, R01 grants, and total R series grants than their colleagues with PhD or MD PhD degrees, but MDs received more K awards. One hundred ninety-eight MD and MD PhD NIH grant recipients were ABA diplomates. These physician-scientists received 26.0% and 53.1% of R and K series grants, respectively. Thirty physician-scientists also held TEE certification; these individuals with an interest in cardiac anesthesiology were awarded 4.8% of all NIH grants. Full Professors were awarded more than three-quarters of R grants and amassed more than $1.3 billion in funding, whereas assistant and associate professors received the majority of K series grants. Male investigators received greater median R grants but fewer median K awards than female researchers. One hundred-fifteen previous or current holders of FAER grants were identified; these individuals earned a total of 240 NIH awards totaling $357.7 million. PhDs, Professors, and male researchers receive the majority of R01 and other R series grants to anesthesiology departments at US medical schools. Physician-scientists, including those interested in cardiac anesthesiology, are awarded a minority of R series grants. FAER continues to provide an important stimulus for subsequent NIH funding of physician-scientists in anesthesiology.

The Fundamentals of Patient Safety: An APSEB Update for 2021

Article| October 2021 The Fundamentals of Patient Safety: An APSEB Update for 2021 L. Jane Easdown, MD, MHPE, FRCPC L. Jane Easdown, MD, MHPE, FRCPC Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar ASA Monitor October 2021, Vol. 85, 14–17. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASM.0000795068.83306.e5 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Cite Icon Cite Get Permissions Search Site Citation L. Jane Easdown; The Fundamentals of Patient Safety: An APSEB Update for 2021. ASA Monitor 2021; 85:14–17 doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ASM.0000795068.83306.e5 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll PublicationsASA Monitor Search Advanced Search The ASA Patient Safety Editorial Board (APSEB) is pleased to announce the newest version of the course Fundamentals of Patient Safety (FPS), which was made available on the ASA website in September 2021. APSEB was created in 2007 to produce patient safety educational material for members wishing to fulfill patient safety credits, which were newly introduced by the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) for maintenance of competency. The first course was Fundamentals of Patient Safety, a 10-hour introduction to the basic concepts of managing critical events as systems failures. The course has been updated several times to improve content, modernize the visuals and audio, and increase the degree of interactive learning. The objective of the FPS course is to orient the learner to the fundamental concepts of medical errors and their mitigation through a systems approach. The course begins with the epidemiology of medical errors and the history of anesthesia's... You do not currently have access to this content.

A Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic Pivot: Development of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Virtual APPLIED Examination.

In 2020, the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic interrupted the administration of the APPLIED Examination, the final part of the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) staged examination system for initial certification. In response, the ABA developed, piloted, and implemented an Internet-based "virtual" form of the examination to allow administration of both components of the APPLIED Exam (Standardized Oral Examination and Objective Structured Clinical Examination) when it was impractical and unsafe for candidates and examiners to travel and have in-person interactions. This article describes the development of the ABA virtual APPLIED Examination, including its rationale, examination format, technology infrastructure, candidate communication, and examiner training. Although the logistics are formidable, we report a methodology for successfully introducing a large-scale, high-stakes, 2-element, remote examination that replicates previously validated assessments.

Resident Preparation for the American Board of Anesthesiology Objective Standardized Clinical Examination: A Comparison of Virtual Telesimulation With In-person Simulation.

The Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is part of the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) certification process. A simulated OSCE can aid examination preparation, but the COVID-19 pandemic prevented in-person simulation training. Therefore, we adapted our in-person simulated OSCE (SOSCE) as a Zoom-based telesimulation OSCE (ZOSCE), permitting examinees to participate remotely. Comparing this process with historical in-person SOSCE cohorts, we hypothesized that this telesimulation-based format would still be well received by the trainees as a substitute when it was not possible to provide in-person practice and formative assessment. Subsequently, the ABA proposed a virtual-format OSCE. We conducted our 7-station ZOSCE according to the ABA content outline for all graduating third-year clinical anesthesia residents (CA-3) in 2020. From a main meeting room, the facilitator paired each CA-3 with a faculty proctor, assigned them to their own breakout room for each station, and rotated standardized patients in. The faculty proctor observed the CA-3's performance in real time using an assessment tool with objectives graded on a 0-2 scale. At the conclusion of the ZOSCE, proctors reviewed the assessment tool with the CA-3 and provided personalized global feedback. Assessment tool scores were used to calculate performance data for the study group that were compared with a SOSCE historical cohort from 2017 and 2018. All parties completed a Likert-style evaluation specific to the ZOSCE. A total of 22 CA-3 residents participated. Mean performance scores ranged from 82.2%-94.9% (minimum = 38%, maximum = 100%). Compared with the historical SOSCE cohort, ZOSCE scores for 5 of 7 stations were not different, but scores in communication with professionals (P = .007) and ultrasound (P < .001) stations were lower. Overall, CA-3 participants rated the learning experience positively and felt it was a reasonable substitution for in-person simulation, with responses similar to those of a historical in-person SOSCE cohort. A telesimulation-based practice ZOSCE for formative examination preparation for the ABA OSCE resulted in similar institutional scoring for most stations compared with in-person SOSCE, but some stations may be better practiced in person or require modifications. The virtual format may permit flexible scheduling during nonclinical times or for learners in remote locations. These findings have implications for future formative exercises and the formal summative examination process.

Residency program directors' perceptions about the impact of the American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination

Study objectiveTo describe how the introduction of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) by the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) to its initial certification impacted anesthesiology residencies in the United States. Design and settingA sequential mixed-methods design with focus groups and online survey among program directors of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residencies. PatientsNo patients were included. InterventionNone. MeasurementsA convenience sample of 34 program directors were interviewed to understand their perceptions of the ABA OSCE. Subsequently, an online survey, based on major themes identified from the focus groups, was sent to all 156 program directors. Main resultsSeveral themes emerged from the focus group discussions: (1) a mock OSCE was most common for preparing residents for the ABA OSCE; 2) the ABA OSCE led to changes in residency curriculum; 3) the ABA OSCE assessed communication and professionalism skills well, and how well it assessed technical skills was less agreed on. Survey results from 87 program directors (response rate = 56%) were mostly consistent with the themes generated by the focus groups. Eight-one out of 87 programs (93%) specifically prepared their residents for the ABA OSCE. Fifty-two out of 81 program directors (64%) reported the introduction of the ABA OSCE led to curricular changes. Out of 79 program directors, 45 (57%) agreed the ABA OSCE assesses skills essential to anesthesiology practice, and 40 (51%) considered it added value to board certification. ConclusionsThe introduction of the OSCE by the ABA for board certification has affected the curriculum of many residencies. Approximately 3 in 5 program directors perceived the ABA OSCE measures skills essential to anesthesiologists' practice. Future studies should assess residency graduates' perspective on the usefulness of both mock OSCE preparation and the ABA OSCE, and whether the ABA OSCE performance predicts future clinical practice.

Demographic Trends From 2005 to 2015 Among Physicians With Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-Accredited Anesthesiology Training and Active Medical Licenses.

A temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates that occurred around the turn of the millennium may have workforce implications. The aims of this study are to describe, between 2005 and 2015, (1) demographic changes in the workforce of physicians trained as anesthesiologists; (2) national and state densities of these physicians, as well as temporal changes in the densities; and (3) retention of medical licenses by mid- and later-career anesthesiologists. Using records from the American Board of Anesthesiology and state medical and osteopathic boards, the numbers of licensed physicians aged 30-59 years who had completed Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited anesthesiology residency training were calculated cross-sectionally for 2005, 2010, and 2015. Demographic trends were then described. Census data were used to calculate national and state densities of licensed physicians. Individual longitudinal data were used to describe retention of medical licenses among older physicians. The number of licensed physicians trained as anesthesiologists aged 30-59 years increased from 32,644 in 2005 to 36,543 in 2010 and 36,624 in 2015, representing a national density of 1.10, 1.18, and 1.14 per 10,000 population in those years, respectively. The density of anesthesiologists among states ranged from 0.37 to 3.10 per 10,000 population. The age distribution differed across the years. For example, anesthesiologists aged 40-49 years predominated in 2005 (47%), but by 2015, only 31% of anesthesiologists were aged 40-49 years. The proportion of female anesthesiologists grew from 22% in 2005, to 24% in 2010, and to 28% in 2015, particularly among early-career anesthesiologists. For anesthesiologists with licenses in 2005, the number who still had active licenses in 2015 decreased by 9.6% for those aged 45-49 years, by 14.1% for those aged 50-54 years, and by 19.7% for those aged 55-59 years. The temporary decrease in anesthesiology residency graduates around the turn of the 21st century decreased the proportion of anesthesiologists who were midcareer as of 2015. This may affect the future availability of senior leaders as well as the future overall workforce in the specialty as older anesthesiologists retire. National efforts to plan for workforce needs should recognize the geographical variability in the distribution of anesthesiologists.

US Residents' Perspectives on the Introduction, Conduct, and Value of American Board of Anesthesiology's Objective Structured Clinical Examination-Results of the 1st Nationwide Questionnaire Survey.

Introduction:Passing the Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) is currently a requirement for the vast majority (not all) of candidates to gain American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) initial certification. Many publications from the ABA have attempted to justify its introduction, conduct and value. However, the ABA has never attempted to understand the views of the residents.Methods:A total of 4237 residents at various training levels from 132 programs were surveyed by asking to fill a Google questionnaire prospectively between March 8th, 2021 and April 10th, 2021. Every potential participant was sent an original email followed by 2 reminders.Results:The overall response rate was 17.26% (710 responses to 4112 invitations). On a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as “very inaccurate” and 5 as “very accurate,” the mean accuracy of objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) in assessing communication skills and professionalism was 2.3 and 2.1 respectively. In terms of the usefulness of OSCE training for improving physicians' clinical practice, avoiding lawsuits, teaching effective communication with patients and teaching effective communication with other providers, the means on a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as “Not at all useful” and 5 as “Very useful” were 1.86, 1.69, 1.79, and 1.82 respectively. Residents unanimously thought that factors such as culture, race/ethnicity, religion and language adversely influence the assessment of communication skills. On a 5-point Likert scale with 1 as “not at all affected” and 5 as “very affected,” the corresponding scores were 3.45, 3.19, 3.89, and 3.18 respectively. Interestingly, nationality and political affiliation were also thought to influence this assessment, however, to a lesser extent. In addition, residents believed it is inappropriate to test non-cardiac anesthesiologists for TEE skills (2.39), but felt it was appropriate to test non-regional anesthesiologists in Ultrasound skills (3.29). Lastly, nearly 80% of the residents think that money was the primary motivating factor behind ABA's introduction of the OSCE. Over 96% residents think that OSCE should be stalled, either permanently scrapped (60.8%) or paused (35.8%).Conclusions:Anesthesiology residents in the United States overwhelmingly indicated that the OSCE does not serve any useful purpose and should be immediately halted.

Educating Anesthesiologists During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic and Beyond.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered approaches to anesthesiology education by shifting educational paradigms. This vision article discusses pre-COVID-19 educational methodologies and best evidence, adaptations required under COVID-19, and evidence for these modifications, and suggests future directions for anesthesiology education. Learning management systems provide structure to online learning. They have been increasingly utilized to improve access to didactic materials asynchronously. Despite some historic reservations, the pandemic has necessitated a rapid uptake across programs. Commercially available systems offer a wide range of peer-reviewed curricular options. The flipped classroom promotes learning foundational knowledge before teaching sessions with a focus on application during structured didactics. There is growing evidence that this approach is preferred by learners and may increase knowledge gain. The flipped classroom works well with learning management systems to disseminate focused preclass work. Care must be taken to keep virtual sessions interactive. Simulation, already used in anesthesiology, has been critical in preparation for the care of COVID-19 patients. Multidisciplinary, in situ simulations allow for rapid dissemination of new team workflows. Physical distancing and reduced availability of providers have required more sessions. Early pandemic decreases in operating volumes have allowed for this; future planning will have to incorporate smaller groups, sanitizing of equipment, and attention to use of personal protective equipment. Effective technical skills training requires instruction to mastery levels, use of deliberate practice, and high-quality feedback. Reduced sizes of skill-training workshops and approaches for feedback that are not in-person will be required. Mock oral and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) allow for training and assessment of competencies often not addressed otherwise. They provide formative and summative data and objective measurements of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. They also allow for preparation for the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) APPLIED examination. Adaptations to teleconferencing or videoconferencing can allow for continued use. Benefits of teaching in this new era include enhanced availability of asynchronous learning and opportunities to apply universal, expert-driven curricula. Burdens include decreased social interactions and potential need for an increased amount of smaller, live sessions. Acquiring learning management systems and holding more frequent simulation and skills sessions with fewer learners may increase cost. With the increasing dependency on multimedia and technology support for teaching and learning, one important focus of educational research is on the development and evaluation of strategies that reduce extraneous processing and manage essential and generative processing in virtual learning environments. Collaboration to identify and implement best practices has the potential to improve education for all learners.

The American Board of Anesthesiology Gets a Passing Grade on Its New Objective Structured Clinical Examination.

The American Board of Anesthesiology Gets a Passing Grade on Its New Objective Structured Clinical Examination.

Anesthesiology Resident Performance on the US Medical Licensing Examination Predicts Success on the American Board of Anesthesiology BASIC Staged Examination: An Observational Study.

Correlation has been found between the US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 examination results and anesthesiology resident success on American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) examinations. In 2014, the ABA instituted the BASIC examination at the end of the postgraduate year-2 year. We hypothesized a similar predictive value of USMLE scores on BASIC examination success. After the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at UTHealth Institutional Review Board approved and waived written consent, we retrospectively evaluated USMLE Step examination performance on first-time BASIC examination success in a single academic department from 2014-2018. Over 5 years, 120 residents took the ABA BASIC examination and 108 (90%) passed on the first attempt. Ten of 12 first-time failures were successful on repeat examination but analyzed in the failure group. Complete data was available for 92 residents (76.7%), with absent scores primarily reflecting osteopathic graduates who completed Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination of the United States level examinations rather than USMLE. In the failure cohort, all 3 USMLE examination step scores were lower (P < .02). USMLE Step 1 score independently predicted success on the BASIC examination (odds ratio [OR] 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.17, P < .001). Although USMLE Step 2 score predicted BASIC examination success (OR 1.10, 95% CI 1.04-1.18, P = .001), this did not remain after adjustment for Step 1 score using multiple logistic regression (P = .11). In multivariable logistical regression, first clinical anesthesia in-training examination score and USMLE Step 1 score were significant for predictors of success on the BASIC exam. In anesthesiology residency training, our preliminary single-center data is the first to suggest that USMLE Step 1 performance could be used as a predictor of success on the recently introduced ABA BASIC Examination. These findings do not support recent action to change USMLE scoring to a pass/fail report.