Procedural sedation competencies: a review and multidisciplinary international consensus statement on knowledge, skills, training, and credentialing.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY
Piet L Leroy,Baruch S Krauss,Luciane R Costa,Egidio Barbi,Michael G Irwin,Douglas W Carlson,Anthony Absalom,Gary Andolfatto,Mark G Roback,Franz E Babl,Keira P Mason,James Roelofse,Paulo S Costa,Steven M Green,
{"title":"Procedural sedation competencies: a review and multidisciplinary international consensus statement on knowledge, skills, training, and credentialing.","authors":"Piet L Leroy,Baruch S Krauss,Luciane R Costa,Egidio Barbi,Michael G Irwin,Douglas W Carlson,Anthony Absalom,Gary Andolfatto,Mark G Roback,Franz E Babl,Keira P Mason,James Roelofse,Paulo S Costa,Steven M Green,","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Procedural sedation is practised by a heterogeneous group of practitioners working in a wide array of settings. However, there are currently no accepted standards for the competencies a sedation practitioner should have, the content of sedation training programmes, and guidelines for credentialing. The multidisciplinary International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation sought to develop a consensus statement on the following: which competencies should medical or dental practitioners have for procedural sedation and how are they obtained, assessed, maintained, and privileged. Using the framework of Competency-Based Medical Education, the practice of procedural sedation was defined as a complex professional task requiring demonstrable integration of different competencies. For each question, the results of a literature review were synthetised into preliminary statements. Following an iterative Delphi review method, final consensus was reached. Using multispeciality consensus, we defined procedural sedation competence by identifying a set of core competencies in the domains of knowledge, skills, and attitudes across physical safety, effectiveness, psychological safety, and deliberate practice. In addition, we present a standardised framework for competency-based training and credentialing of procedural sedation practitioners.","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.07.036","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Procedural sedation is practised by a heterogeneous group of practitioners working in a wide array of settings. However, there are currently no accepted standards for the competencies a sedation practitioner should have, the content of sedation training programmes, and guidelines for credentialing. The multidisciplinary International Committee for the Advancement of Procedural Sedation sought to develop a consensus statement on the following: which competencies should medical or dental practitioners have for procedural sedation and how are they obtained, assessed, maintained, and privileged. Using the framework of Competency-Based Medical Education, the practice of procedural sedation was defined as a complex professional task requiring demonstrable integration of different competencies. For each question, the results of a literature review were synthetised into preliminary statements. Following an iterative Delphi review method, final consensus was reached. Using multispeciality consensus, we defined procedural sedation competence by identifying a set of core competencies in the domains of knowledge, skills, and attitudes across physical safety, effectiveness, psychological safety, and deliberate practice. In addition, we present a standardised framework for competency-based training and credentialing of procedural sedation practitioners.
手术镇静能力:关于知识、技能、培训和资格认证的回顾和多学科国际共识声明。
手术镇静是由在各种环境中工作的不同从业人员实施的。然而,目前对于镇静从业人员应具备的能力、镇静培训课程的内容以及资格认证的指导原则还没有公认的标准。多学科国际程序性镇静促进委员会试图就以下问题达成共识:医疗或牙科从业人员在程序性镇静方面应具备哪些能力,以及如何获得、评估、保持和授予特权。利用能力本位医学教育的框架,程序性镇静的实践被定义为一项复杂的专业任务,需要证明不同能力的整合。对于每个问题,我们都将文献综述的结果综合为初步陈述。经过德尔菲迭代审查法,最终达成共识。通过多学科共识,我们确定了手术镇静能力的定义,即在物理安全、有效性、心理安全和审慎实践等知识、技能和态度领域的一系列核心能力。此外,我们还提出了一个标准化框架,用于对程序性镇静从业人员进行基于能力的培训和资格认证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信