Defining fitness for purpose in South African anaesthesiologists using a Delphi technique to assess the CanMEDS framework

Background: Training of South African anaesthesiologists is based on the Canadian Medical Education Directives for Specialists (CanMEDS). However, the applicability of CanMEDS in this context has not been assessed. An expert panel participated in a Delphi process to create an appropriate expanded list of CanMEDS competencies that may be used in the future to assess fitness for purpose of local graduates. Methods: This descriptive study comprised a representative panel of 16 experts surveyed electronically over three rounds to assess the importance of the existing CanMEDS roles and enabling competencies and suggested additions deemed applicable locally. The primary outcome was the creation of a list of competencies applicable to South Africa. Results: There was a 100% response rate for all three rounds. Based on the existing seven CanMEDS meta-competencies (Medical Expert, Collaborator, Communicator, Leader, Scholar, Professional and Health Advocate), respondents scored the importance of 89 enabling competencies and 19 additional competencies. Seven CanMEDS enabling competencies did not achieve consensus and were excluded. Nineteen new enabling competencies and two new meta-competencies (Humaneness, Context Awareness) achieved consensus and were added. Median ratings of importance of meta-competencies showed highest scores for Medical Expert and Collaborator and lowest scores for Health Advocate. Weighting of meta-competencies revealed highest scores for Medical Expert and Professional with all others equally weighted. Conclusion: This study has formulated an adapted CanMEDS list of enabling competencies with the addition of the two new metacompetencies of Context Awareness and Humaneness for use in South African anaesthesiology. This provides a means with which future graduates may be assessed for fitness for purpose

Errors and clinical supervision of intubation attempts by the inexperienced

Background: Tracheal intubation is an essential skill for anaesthetists and other disciplines that require emergency establishment of a secure airway. Early attempts in patients often meet with failure. Existing publications focus mainly on trainees in emergency settings and highlight the role of experience in success; most recommend prior simulation training. Common factors identified as contributing to difficulty have been difficult airways, emergencies and rapid sequence induction. Early intubation skill development in patients with anticipated straightforward airways in a controlled environment has received little attention. Objectives: This qualitative observational study aimed to identify common difficulties associated with a supervised intubation process by inexperienced personnel in the relatively stress-free conditions of elective surgical procedures in the operating theatre. Methods: Following institutional and ethical approval, participants, supervisors, anaesthetic assistants and patients consented to observation and video-recording of supervised intubations in a Durban teaching hospital. Anonymity and confidentiality were assured. Contemporaneous observations were recorded in theatre, and video-recordings were subsequently reviewed for content. Errors, and interactions between supervisor, assistant and participant, and associated outcomes, were identified. Results: Twenty participants (medical interns and medical, paramedical and nursing students) performing 72 intubations were observed. All participants had prior training using manikins or simulators. There were 61 successful intubations and 11 unsuccessful attempts. Factors associated with failure included unfamiliarity with airway, equipment or process. Process errors included inadequate head positioning, laryngoscope handling and tracheal tube manipulation. Anaesthetic assistants contributed to difficulties in some cases. Supervisor support was either verbal, physical or both. Less experienced supervisors tended to intervene earlier. There was a significant trend for success associated with the reported number of prior successful intubations. A successful intubation within the study was, however, no guarantee of subsequent success. Conclusion: Despite prior simulation training, many participants demonstrated lack of familiarity with the airway, intubation process and equipment. While improved simulation training might partly address these issues, supervision of early clinical intubation attempts needs to be redirected from the process of intubation itself to the process of intubation skills acquisition. A first step would be to ensure that all supervisors and assistants are trained for the latter goal, anticipating common errors and providing standardised conditions for success. The use of video-recording of the events is an invaluable aid to observation and interpretation, and is recommended as an adjunct to further studies of mechanical skills transfer