Results of a Flipped Classroom Teaching Approach in Anesthesiology Residents.

BACKGROUND: In a flipped classroom approach, learners view educational content prior to class and engage in active learning during didactic sessions. OBJECTIVE: We hypothesized that a flipped classroom improves knowledge acquisition and retention for residents compared to traditional lecture, and that residents prefer this approach. METHODS: We completed 2 iterations of a study in 2014 and 2015. Institutions were assigned to either flipped classroom or traditional lecture for 4 weekly sessions. The flipped classroom consisted of reviewing a 15-minute video, followed by 45-minute in-class interactive sessions with audience response questions, think-pair-share questions, and case discussions. The traditional lecture approach consisted of a 55-minute lecture given by faculty with 5 minutes for questions. Residents completed 3 knowledge tests (pretest, posttest, and 4-month retention) and surveys of their perceptions of the didactic sessions. A linear mixed model was used to compare the effect of both formats on knowledge acquisition and retention. RESULTS: Of 182 eligible postgraduate year 2 anesthesiology residents, 155 (85%) participated in the entire intervention, and 142 (78%) completed all tests. The flipped classroom approach improved knowledge retention after 4 months (adjusted mean = 6%; P = .014; d = 0.56), and residents preferred the flipped classroom (pre = 46%; post = 82%; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The flipped classroom approach to didactic education resulted in a small improvement in knowledge retention and was preferred by anesthesiology residents.

Anesthesiology resident personality type correlates with faculty assessment of resident performance.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To study the association between anesthesiology residents' personality preference types, faculty evaluations of residents' performance, and knowledge. DESIGN: Convenience sample and prospective study. SETTING: Academic department of anesthesiology. SUBJECTS: Consenting anesthesiology residents (n = 36). INTERVENTIONS: All participants completed the Myers Briggs Type Indicator® (MBTI®). MEASUREMENTS: All residents' 6-month summation of daily focal evaluations completed by faculty [daily performance score (DPS); 1 = unsatisfactory, 2 = needs improvement, 3 = meets expectations, 4 = exceeds expectations], as well as a global assessment of performance (GAP) score based on placement of each resident into perceived quartile compared with their peers (ie,1 = first, or top, quartile) by senior faculty (n = 7) who also completed the MBTI, were obtained. The resident MBTI personality preferences were compared with the DPS and GAP scores, the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) I and II scores, and faculty MBTI personality type. MAIN RESULTS: There was no association between personality preference type and performance on standardized examinations (USMLE I, II). The mean GAP score was better (higher quartile score) for Extraverts than Introverts (median 2.0 vs 2.6, P = 0.0047) and for Sensing versus Intuition (median 2.0 vs 2.6, P = 0.0206) preference. Faculty evaluator MBTI preference type did not influence the GAP scores they assigned residents. Like GAP, the DPS was better for residents with Sensing versus Intuition preference (median 3.5 vs 3.3, P = 0.0111). No difference in DPS was noted between Extraverts and Introverts. CONCLUSIONS: Personality preference type was not associated with resident performance on standardized examinations, but it was associated with faculty evaluations of resident performance. Residents with Sensing personality preference were evaluated more favorably on global and focal faculty evaluations than those residents who chose the Intuition preference. Extraverted residents were evaluated more favorably on global but not focal assessment of performance.

Perioperative antibiotic process improvement reaps rewards.

Recent health care improvement initiatives have linked financial payments to compliance with predetermined performance measures. This article reports the effect of a unique prophylactic antibiotic use program on compliance rates and costs. The Departments of Surgery, Infection Control, and Anesthesiology collaborated on a prophylactic preoperative antibiotic protocol, whereby Anesthesiology assumed responsibility for timely antibiotic prophylaxis (TAP) before surgical incision. Data from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2008, were compared (z test) with the 12-month period before this change. χ(2) Analysis identified factors associated with TAP. Return on investment (ROI) was calculated. TAP compliance rates increased from 75.1% to 89.3% (P < .001) following program implementation. Factors associated with TAP failure included >60 minutes from anesthesia induction to surgical incision (P < .001), surgical procedure (P < .001), specific antibiotic administered (P < .001), and individual anesthesia provider (P < .001). The ROI was 2.2. TAP compliance rates increased after Anesthesiology assumed responsibility, with anesthesia providers being a significant factor.

Evaluating practice-based learning and improvement: efforts to improve acceptance of portfolios.

INTRODUCTION: The Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) recommends resident portfolios as 1 method for assessing competence in practice-based learning and improvement. In July 2005, when anesthesiology residents in our department were required to start a portfolio, the residents and their faculty advisors did not readily accept this new requirement. Intensive education efforts addressing the goals and importance of portfolios were undertaken. We hypothesized that these educational efforts improved acceptance of the portfolio and retrospectively audited the portfolio evaluation forms completed by faculty advisors. METHODS: Intensive education about the goals and importance of portfolios began in January 2006, including presentations at departmental conferences and one-on-one education sessions. Faculty advisors were instructed to evaluate each resident's portfolio and complete a review form. We retrospectively collected data to determine the percentage of review forms completed by faculty. The portfolio reviews also assessed the percentage of 10 required portfolio components residents had completed. RESULTS: Portfolio review forms were completed by faculty advisors for 13% (5/38) of residents during the first advisor-advisee meeting in December 2005. Initiation of intensive education efforts significantly improved compliance, with review forms completed for 68% (26/38) of residents in May 2006 (P < .0001) and 95% (36/38) in December 2006 (P < .0001). Residents also significantly improved the completeness of portfolios between May and December of 2006. DISCUSSION: Portfolios are considered a best methods technique by the ACGME for evaluation of practice-based learning and improvment. We have found that intensive education about the goals and importance of portfolios can enhance acceptance of this evaluation tool, resulting in improved compliance in completion and evaluation of portfolios.

National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) risk factors can be used to validate American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status Classification (ASA PS) levels.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the American Society of Anesthesiologists' Physical Status (ASA PS) classifications and the other National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) preoperative risk factors. BACKGROUND: The ASA PS has been shown to predict morbidity and mortality in surgical patients but is inconsistently applied and clinically imprecise. It is desirable to have a method for validating ASA PS classification levels. METHODS: The NSQIP preoperative risk factors, including ASA PS, were recorded from a random sample of 5878 surgical patients on 6 services between October 1, 2001 and September 30, 2003 at the University of Kentucky Medical Center. Mortality, morbidity, costs, and length of stay were obtained and compared across ASA PS levels. The ability of 1) ASA PS alone, 2) the other NSQIP risk factors, and, 3) all factors combined to predict outcomes was analyzed. A model using the other NSQIP risk factors was developed to predict ASA PS. RESULTS: ASA PS alone was a strong predictor of outcomes (P < 0.01). However, the other NSQIP risk factors were better predictors as a group. There was significant interdependence between the ASA PS and the other NSQIP risk factors. Predictions of ASA PS using the other factors showed strong agreement with the anesthesiologists' assignments. CONCLUSIONS: The NSQIP risk factors other than ASA PS can and should be used to validate ASA PS classifications.