Competency-based anesthesiology teaching: comparison of programs in Brazil, Canada and the United States

Development and applications of the anaesthetists' non-technical skills behavioural marker system: protocol for a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

The high incidence of unsafe anaesthetic care leads to adverse events and increases the burden on patient safety. An important reason for unsafe anaesthesia care is the lack of non-technical skills (NTS), which are defined as personal cognitive, social or interpersonal skills, among anaesthetists. The anaesthetists' NTS (ANTS) behavioural marker system has been widely used to evaluate and improve anaesthetists' behavioural performance to ensure patient safety. This protocol describes a planned systematic review aiming to determine the validity and reliability of the ANTS behavioural marker system and its application as a tool for the training and assessment of ANTS and for improving patient safety.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This systematic review follows the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocol. Studies that applied the ANTS behavioural marker system in a meaningful way, including using the ANTS behavioural marker system to guide data collection, analysis, coding, measurement, and/or reporting, which have been published in peer-reviewed journals, will be eligible. A citation search strategy will be employed. We will search Scopus and Web of Science for publications from 2002 to May 2022, which cite the three original ANTS behavioural marker system publications by Fletcher et al. We will also search the references of the relevant reviews for additional eligible studies. For each study, two authors will independently screen papers to determine eligibility and will extract the data. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklists. A framework analysis approach that consists of five steps-familiarisation, identifying a thematic data extraction framework, indexing, charting, mapping and interpretation-will be used to synthesise and report the data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this study. The findings will be disseminated primarily through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022297773.

First steps towards international competency goals for residency training: a qualitative comparison of 3 regional standards in anesthesiology

BACKGROUND

Competency-based medical education (CBME) has revolutionized approaches to training by making expectations more concrete, visible, and relevant for trainees. Designing, applying, and updating CBME requirements challenges residency programs, which must address many aspects of training simultaneously. This challenge also exists for educational regulatory bodies in creating and adjusting national competencies to standardize training expectations. We propose that an international approach for mapping residency training requirements may provide a baseline for assessing commonalities and differences. This approach allows us to take our first steps towards creating international competency goals to enhance sharing of best practices in education and clinical work.

METHODS

We chose anesthesiology residency training as our example discipline. Using two rounds of content analysis, we qualitatively compared published anesthesiology residency competencies for the European Union (The European Training Requirement), United States (ACGME Milestones), and Canada (CanMEDS Competence By Design), focusing on similarities and differences in representation (round one) and emphasis (round two) to generate hypotheses on practical solutions regarding international educational standards.

RESULTS

We mapped the similarities and discrepancies between the three repositories. Round one revealed that 93% of competencies were common between the three repositories. Major differences between European Training Requirement, US Milestones, and Competence by Design competencies involved critical emergency medicine. Round two showed that over 30% of competencies were emphasized equally, with notable exceptions that European Training Requirement emphasized Anaesthesia Non-Technical Skills, Competence by Design highlighted more granular competencies within specific anesthesiology situations, and US Milestones emphasized professionalism and behavioral practices.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative comparison has identified commonalities and differences in anesthesiology training which may facilitate sharing broader perspectives on diverse high-quality educational, clinical, and research practices to enhance innovative approaches. Determining these overlaps in residency training can prompt international educational societies responsible for creating competencies to collaborate to design future training programs. This approach may be considered as a feasible method to build an international core of residency competency requirements for other disciplines.