Anaesthesia training designs across Europe: A survey-based study from the trainees committee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care

BACKGROUND

Anaesthesiology training programs in Europe vary in duration, content, and requirements for completion. This survey-based study conducted by the Trainees Committee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care explores current anaesthesia training designs across Europe.

METHODS

Between May and July 2018, we sent a 41-item online questionnaire to all National Trainee Representatives, members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee, and Council Representatives of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) of all member countries. We cross-validated inconsistent data with different country representatives.

RESULTS

Forty-three anaesthesiologists from all 39 associated ESAIC countries completed the questionnaire. Results showed considerable variability in teaching formats, frequency of teaching sessions during training, and differences in assessments made during and at the end of training. The reported duration of training was 60 months in 59% (n = 23) of participating countries, ranging from 24 months in Russia and Ukraine to 84 months in the UK.

CONCLUSION

This study shows the significant differences in anaesthesiology training formats across Europe, and highlights the importance of developing standardised training programs to ensure a consistent level of training and to improve patient safety. This study provides valuable insights into European anaesthesia training, and underlines the need for further research and collaboration to improve requirements.

Five-year audit of adherence to an anaesthesia pre-induction checklist

Although patient safety related to airway management has improved substantially over the last few decades, life‐threatening events still occur. Technical skills, clinical expertise and human factors contribute to successful airway management. Checklists aim to improve safety by providing a structured approach to equipment, personnel and decision‐making. This audit investigates adherence to our institution's airway checklist from 1 June 2016 to 31 May 2021. Inclusion criteria were procedures requiring airway management and we excluded all procedures performed solely under regional anaesthesia, sedation without airway management or paediatric and cardiovascular surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of wholly performed pre‐induction checklists. Secondary outcomes were the pattern of adherence over the 5 years well as details of airway management, including: airway management difficulties; time and location of induction; anaesthesia teams in operating theatres (including teams for different surgical specialities); non‐operating theatre and emergency procedures; type of anaesthesia (general or combined); and urgency of the procedure. In total, 95,946 procedures were included. In 57.3%, anaesthesia pre‐induction checklists were completed. Over the 5 years after implementation, adherence improved from 48.3% to 66.7% (p < 0.001). Anticipated and unanticipated airway management difficulties (e.g. facemask ventilation, supraglottic airway device or intubation) defined by the handling anaesthetist were encountered in 4.2% of all procedures. Completion of the checklist differed depending on the time of day (61.3% during the day vs. 35.0% during the night, p < 0.001). Completion also differed depending on location (66.8% in operating theatres vs. 41.0% for non‐operating theatre anaesthesia, p < 0.001) and urgency of procedure (65.4% in non‐emergencies vs. 35.4% in emergencies, p < 0.001). A mixed‐effect model indicated that urgency of procedure is a strong predictor for adherence, with emergency cases having lower adherence (OR 0.58, 95%CI 0.49–0.68, p < 0.001). In conclusion, over 5 years, a significant increase in adherence to an anaesthesia pre‐induction checklist was found, and areas for further improvement (e.g. emergencies, non‐operating room procedures, night‐time procedures) were identified.

Modalities and accuracy of diagnosis of external ventricular drainage-related infections: a prospective multicentre observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

Device infection is a major complication of placement external ventricular drains (EVD). Diagnostic features are often masked by underlying disease or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) contamination by blood. We aim to assess which diagnostic modalities are applied for EVD-related infection (ERI) diagnosis and evaluate their accuracy.

METHODS

This observational prospective study included 187 adult patients with an EVD. Modalities of clinical diagnosis of ERI diagnosed by treating physicians on clinical grounds and blood and CSF analysis (clinically diagnosed ERI (CD-ERI)) were assessed prospectively. Additionally, the diagnostic accuracy of clinical and laboratory parameters for the diagnosis of culture proven ERI (CP-ERI) was evaluated, using data of the study patients and including a retrospective cohort of 39 patients with CP-ERI.

RESULTS

Thirty-one CD-ERIs were diagnosed in the prospective cohort. Most physicians used CSF analysis to establish the diagnosis. ROC analysis revealed an AUC of 0.575 (p = 0.0047) for the number of positive SIRS criteria and AUC of 0.5420 (p = 0.11) for the number of pathological neurological signs for diagnosis of CP-ERI. Diagnostic accuracy of laboratory values was AUC 0.596 (p = 0.0006) for serum white blood cell count (WBCC), AUC 0.550 (p = 0.2489) for serum C-reactive protein, AUC 0.644 (p < 0.0001) for CSF WBCC and AUC 0.690 for CSF WBC/red blood cell count ratio (both p < 0.0001). Neither a temporal trend in potential predictors of CP-ERI nor a correlation between clinical diagnosis and proven CSF infection was found.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinicians base their diagnosis of ERI mostly on CSF analysis and occurrence of fever, leading to over-diagnosis. The accuracy of the clinical diagnosis is low. Commonly used clinical and laboratory diagnostic criteria have a low sensitivity and specificity for ERI.