Non-Fellowship regional anesthesia training and assessment: an international Delphi study on a consensus curriculum.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: While there are several published recommendations and guidelines for trainees undertaking subspecialty Fellowships in regional anesthesia, a similar document describing a core regional anesthesia curriculum for non-fellowship trainees is less well defined. We aimed to produce an international consensus for the training and teaching of regional anesthesia that is applicable for the majority of worldwide anesthesiologists. METHODS: This anonymous, electronic Delphi study was conducted over two rounds and distributed to current and immediate past (within 5 years) directors of regional anesthesia training worldwide. The steering committee formulated an initial list of items covering nerve block techniques, learning objectives and skills assessment and volume of practice, relevant to a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Participants scored these items in order of importance using a 10-point Likert scale, with free-text feedback. Strong consensus items were defined as highest importance (score ≥8) by ≥70% of all participants. RESULTS: 469 participants/586 invitations (80.0% response) scored in round 1, and 402/469 participants (85.7% response) scored in round 2. Participants represented 66 countries. Strong consensus was reached for 8 core peripheral and neuraxial blocks and 17 items describing learning objectives and skills assessment. Volume of practice for peripheral blocks was uniformly 16-20 blocks per anatomical region, while ≥50 neuraxial blocks were considered minimum. CONCLUSIONS: This international consensus study provides specific information for designing a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Implementation of a standardized curriculum has benefits for patient care through improving quality of training and quality of nerve blocks.

Survey of international regional anesthesia fellowship directors.

BACKGROUND: The scope of regional anesthesia fellowship programs has not been analyzed but may provide insights that could improve fellowship training and standards. METHODS: Regional anesthesia fellowship directors across the world were asked to complete a comprehensive survey that detailed the range of educational and practical experience and attitudes as well as assessment procedures offered in their programs. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 66% (45/68). Overall, the range of activities and the time and resources committed to education during fellowships is encouraging. A wide range of nerve block experience is reported with most programs also offering acute pain management, research, and teaching opportunities. Only two-thirds of fellowships provide formal feedback. This feedback is typically a formative assessment. CONCLUSION: This is the first survey of regional anesthesia fellowship directors, and it illustrates the international scope and continuing expansion of education and training in the field. The results should be of interest to program directors seeking to benchmark and improve their educational programs and to faculty involved in further curriculum development.