Current status and solutions for gender equity in anaesthesia research.

Despite increasing numbers of women entering anaesthesia, they remain persistently under-represented within academic anaesthesia and research. Gender discordance is seen across multiple aspects of research, including authorship, editorship, peer review, grant receipt, speaking and leading. Women are also under-represented at higher faculty ranks and in department chair positions. These inequities are further magnified for women with intersectional identities, such as those who identify as Black, indigenous and women of colour. Several barriers to participation in research have been identified to date, including a disproportionate amount of family responsibilities, a disproportionate burden of clinical service, gender bias, sexual harassment and the gender pay gap. Several strategies to improve gender equity have been proposed. Increasing access to formal mentorship of women in academic medicine is frequently cited and has been used by healthcare institutions and medical societies. Senior faculty and leaders must also be conscious of including women in sponsorship and networking opportunities. Institutions should provide support for parents of all genders, including supportive parental leave policies and flexible work models. Women should also be materially supported to attend formal educational conferences targeted for women, aimed at improving networking, peer support and professional development. Finally, leaders must display a clear intolerance for sexual harassment and discrimination to drive culture change. Peers and leaders alike, of all genders, can act as upstanders and speak up on behalf of targets of discrimination, both in the moment or after the fact. Gender inequities have persisted for far too long and can no longer be ignored. Diversifying the anaesthesia research community is essential to the future of the field.

Impact of the intersection of anaesthesia and gender on burnout and mental health, illustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Physician burnout and poor mental health are prevalent and often stigmatised. Anaesthetists may be at particular risk and this is further increased for women anaesthetists due to biases and inequities within the specialty. However, gender-related risk factors for and experiences of burnout and poor mental health remain under-researched and under-reported. This negatively impacts individual practitioners, the anaesthesia workforce and patients and carries significant financial implications. We discuss the impact of anaesthesia and gender on burnout and mental health using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example illustrating how women and men differentially experience stressors and burnout. COVID-19 has further accentuated the gendered effects of burnout and poor mental health on anaesthetists and brought further urgency to the need to address these issues. While both personal and organisational factors contribute to burnout and poor mental health, organisational changes that recognise and acknowledge inequities are pivotal to bolster physician mental health.

Simulation-based training in anaesthesiology: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Simulation has long been integrated in anaesthesiology training, yet a comprehensive review of its effectiveness is presently lacking. Using meta-analysis and critical narrative analysis, we synthesized the evidence for the effectiveness of simulation-based anaesthesiology training. We searched MEDLINE, ERIC, and SCOPUS through May 2011 and included studies using simulation to train health professional learners. Data were abstracted independently and in duplicate. We included 77 studies (6066 participants). Compared with no intervention (52 studies), simulation was associated with moderate to large pooled effect sizes (ESs) for all outcomes (ES range 0.60-1.05) except for patient effects (ES -0.39). Compared with non-simulation instruction (11 studies), simulation was associated with moderate effects for satisfaction and skills (ES 0.39 and 0.42, respectively), large effect for behaviours (1.77), and small effects for time, knowledge, and patient effects (-0.18 to 0.23). In 17 studies comparing alternative simulation interventions, training in non-technical skills (e.g. communication) and medical management compared with training in medical management alone was associated with negligible effects for knowledge and skills (four studies, ES range 0.14-0.15). Debriefing using multiple vs single information sources was associated with negligible effects for time and skills (three studies, ES range -0.07 to 0.09). Our critical analysis showed inconsistency in measurement of non-technical skills and consistency in the (ineffective) design of debriefing. Simulation in anaesthesiology appears to be more effective than no intervention (except for patient outcomes) and non-inferior to non-simulation instruction. Few studies have clarified the key instructional designs for simulation-based anaesthesiology training.