Competency domains of educators in medical, nursing, and health sciences education: An integrative review.

PURPOSE: Competencies for educators of healthcare professionals are important for demonstrating accountability, defining roles and responsibilities, structuring activities for training and development, defining standards, quality assurance, performance reviews, career development, and promoting the professionalisation of teaching. The frameworks and domains of educator competencies have not previously been reviewed or systematically described. Through this integrative review, the authors sought to identify an inclusive structure for competency domains that may be applied to educators. METHODS: Keywords were identified in a pilot search, followed by a multi-database search strategy of records published from 2000 to January 2020 with subsequent backward and forward reference searches. We included all record types that listed or described educator competency domains in medical, nursing and health sciences education. We excluded records that described 'ideal traits' or 'characteristics of good teachers/educators,' presented competencies as part of a larger curricular framework, and teaching assessment tool content. RESULTS: The multi-database search retrieved 2942 initial citations. From a full-text review of 301 records, 67 were identified as describing educator competency domains eligible for analysis. Documents contained a median of six domains (interquartile range = 5-7) and 14.9% incorporated at least one overarching element across their domains. Following an inductive thematic analysis, six distinct domains of educator competence were identified: Teaching and facilitating learning; Designing and planning learning; Assessment of learning; Educational research and scholarship; Educational leadership and management; Educational environment, quality, and safety. The two latter domains contained sub-themes that were able to be further categorised. Documents and frameworks were described for a wide variety of health and allied health disciplines. CONCLUSION: Distinct educator competency domains were identified in this analysis, applicable across a range of healthcare disciplines. Along with the description of design elements, these provide a guide for the development and evaluation of educator competency frameworks.

Pain, pain management and related outcomes following pelvic exenteration surgery: a systematic review.

AIM: Pelvic exenteration surgery can improve survival in people with advanced colorectal cancer. This systematic review aimed to review pain intensity and other outcomes, for example the management of pain, the relationship between pain and the extent of surgery and the impact of pain on short-term outcomes. METHOD: Electronic databases were searched from inception to 1 May 2021. We included interventional studies of adults with any indication for pelvic exenteration surgery that also reported pain outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using ROBINS-1. RESULTS: The search found 21 studies that reported pain following pelvic exenteration [n = 1317 patients, mean age 58.4 years (SD 4.8)]. Ten studies were judged to be at moderate risk of bias. Before pelvic exenteration, pain was reported by 19%-100% of patients. Five studies used validated measures of pain intensity. No study measured pain at all three time points in the surgical journey. The presence of pain before surgery predicted postoperative adverse pain outcomes, and pain is more likely to be experienced in those who require wider resections, including bone resection. CONCLUSION: Considering that pain following pelvic exenteration is commonly described by patients, the literature suggests that this symptom is not being measured and therefore addressed.

The Price We Pay for Radical Curative Pelvic Exenterations: Prevalence and Management of Pain.

BACKGROUND: Pelvic exenterations are extensive surgical procedures for locally advanced or recurrent malignancies of the pelvis. However, this is often at the cost of significant morbidity due to perioperative pain, which has been poorly studied. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to review perioperative pain management in patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. DESIGN: This is a retrospective review of patients undergoing pelvic exenteration between January 2013 and December 2014. Data were gathered from medical records and a prospectively maintained database. SETTING: This study was conducted at a single quaternary referral center for pelvic exenteration. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients underwent pelvic exenteration at a single center. INTERVENTIONS: Pelvic exenteration was performed in consecutive patients. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Primary outcomes were the prevalence of preoperative pain, preoperative opiate use (type, dosage), and postoperative pain (verbal numerical rating scale). Secondary outcomes included the number of pain consultations and correlations between preoperative opiate use, length of stay, and extent of resection (en bloc sacrectomy and nerve excision). RESULTS: Ninety-nine patients underwent pelvic exenteration. Sixty-one patients (61.6%) underwent major nerve resection and/or sacrectomy. Thirty patients (30%) required opiates preoperatively, with a mean daily morphine equivalent of 72.9 mg (SD 65.0 mg). Patients on preoperative opiates were more likely to have worse pain postoperatively and to require higher opiate doses and more pain consultations (9.3 vs 4.8; p < 0.001). Major nerve excision and sacrectomy were not associated with worse postoperative pain. By discharge, 60% still required opiate analgesia. LIMITATIONS: Retrospective study design, the subjective nature of pain assessment because of a lack of valid methods to objectively quantify pain, and the lack of long-term follow-up were limitations of this study. CONCLUSIONS: Perioperative pain is a significant issue among patients undergoing pelvic exenteration. One in three patients require high-dose opiates preoperatively that is associated with worse pain outcomes. Potential areas to improve pain outcomes in these complex patients could include increased use of regional anesthesia, antineuropathic agents, and opiate-sparing techniques. See Video Abstract at http://links.lww.com/DCR/A572.

Occipital nerve stimulation for the treatment of occipital neuralgia-eight case studies.

Objective. The aim of this study was to examine the hypothesis that subcutaneous occipital stimulation influences pain due to occipital neuralgia. Materials and Methods. Between 2001 and 2004 eight patients with intractable occipital neuralgia were referred to our center. Their records were reviewed. Each patient was interviewed over the telephone. They were all offered a trial of stimulation using a percutaneous lead over 1 week. If they achieved 50% pain reduction a permanent lead was implanted. The impact of occipital stimulation was measured by pain score, analgesic requirements, and employment status. Results. Seven proceeded to a permanent stimulator. There was a reduction in the visual analog score postimplantation in five of the seven patients. The total quantity of opiates taken after implantation showed a marked reduction. Of the seven who had a permanent implant two acquired full-time employment. Conclusion. Occipital neuralgia is a useful and reversible treatment for intractable occipital neuralgia.