Simulation-based assessment in anesthesia: an international multicentre validation study.

PURPOSE: Simulated clinical events provide a means to evaluate a practitioner's performance in a standardized manner for all candidates that are tested. We sought to provide evidence for the validity of simulation-based assessment tools in simulated pediatric anesthesia emergencies. METHODS: Nine centres in two countries recruited subjects to participate in simulated operating room events. Participants ranged in anesthesia experience from junior residents to staff anesthesiologists. Performances were video recorded for review and scored by specially trained, blinded, expert raters. The rating tools consisted of scenario-specific checklists and a global rating scale that allowed the rater to make a judgement about the subject's performance, and by extension, preparedness for independent practice. The reliability of the tools was classified as "substantial" (intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.84 to 0.96 for the checklists and from 0.85 to 0.94 for the global rating scale). RESULTS: Three-hundred and ninety-one simulation encounters were analysed. Senior trainees and staff significantly out-performed junior trainees (P = 0.04 and P < 0.001 respectively). The effect size of grade (junior vs senior trainee vs staff) on performance was classified as "medium" (partial η2 = 0.06). Performance deficits were observed across all grades of anesthesiologist, particularly in two of the scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the validity of our simulation-based anesthesiologist assessment tools in several domains of validity. We also describe some residual challenges regarding the validity of our tools, some notes of caution in terms of the intended consequences of their use, and identify opportunities for further research.

Intraoperative skull-femoral traction in posterior spinal arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: the impact on perioperative outcomes and health resource utilization.

STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective, single-center cohort study. OBJECTIVE: To study how the systematic use of intraoperative skull-femoral traction (IOSFT) in posterior arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis impacts perioperative outcomes and health resource utilization. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Large scoliosis curves have been associated with increased morbidity and utilization of health resources. When used with reliable neurophysiological monitoring, IOSFT has shown to be safe and to reduce curve magnitude intraoperatively. Thus, we hypothesized that the systematic use of IOSFT may contribute to reducing health resource utilization by reducing curve magnitudes intraoperatively. METHODS: Seventy-three consecutive patients with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis who underwent single-stage posterior spinal arthrodesis from 2008 to 2012 at a tertiary children's hospital were identified. Forty-five patients were operated with IOSFT (traction group) and 28 patients were operated without IOSFT (nontraction group). Outcome measures included operative time, calculated blood loss, blood transfusion requirement, traction-related complications, and cost comparisons. RESULTS: Operative time was 375.6 minutes for the traction group (P=0.0001) and 447.6 minutes for the nontraction group. Calculated blood loss was significantly less in the traction group (P=0.027). Thirty-three percent of patients in the traction group required blood transfusion compared with 64% of patients in the nontraction group (P=0.01, absolute risk reduction of 31%). There was no significant difference in curve magnitude correction (P=0.49). There were no significant complications with the use of traction. There was a significant reduction in cost per surgical procedure in the traction group (P=0.0003). CONCLUSION: The systematic use of IOSFT in posterior spinal arthrodesis for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis contributed to significant reductions in health resource utilization, with no added morbidity. Further research is warranted to investigate the generalizability of these findings. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.