多中心研究肺科危重专科实习生在实习期间对气道管理培训的认知。

IF 1.9 Q3 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
ATS scholar Pub Date : 2024-09-27 eCollection Date: 2024-12-01 DOI:10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0033OC
Christopher Ghiathi, Anthony R Lanfranco, Janae K Heath
{"title":"多中心研究肺科危重专科实习生在实习期间对气道管理培训的认知。","authors":"Christopher Ghiathi, Anthony R Lanfranco, Janae K Heath","doi":"10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0033OC","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is significant variability in airway management training among pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the airway management training of PCCM fellows, specifically evaluating the role of the institutional approach to intubations (anesthesia-predominant primary operators vs. PCCM-predominant) to the overall fellows' educational experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a survey of PCCM fellows at 14 institutions to assess the perceptions of airway management training. Summary statistics were used to analyze the Likert scale responses. Based on our hypothesis of a relationship of a fellow's experience to the institutional approach to intubations, we stratified responses based on whether the primary operator for airway management for critically ill patients was generally anesthesiology or PCCM providers. Statistical significance was determined using either <i>t</i> testing (after converting Likert-style responses to continuous variables) or analysis of variance for categorical variables (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents included 132 fellows across 14 PCCM programs (47% response rate), spanning all fellowship years (29% in first year [<i>n</i> = 38], 31% in second year [<i>n</i> = 41], 26% in third/fourth year [<i>n</i> = 34]). Seventy percent (<i>n</i> = 80) of fellows were very or somewhat satisfied with their airway management training. In fellows training where anesthesia providers primarily perform airway management (29% [<i>n</i> = 34]), satisfaction with training was significantly lower, as was the self-assessment of one's airway management skills. The location of airway management experience in anesthesia-predominant programs was mainly the operating room (69% [<i>n</i> = 22]), versus mainly in the intensive care unit for PCCM-predominant programs (94% [<i>n</i> = 77]). The number of completed intubations was lower for fellows in anesthesia-predominant programs (<i>P</i> = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found significant differences in fellows' experiences in airway management based on the institutional approach to intubations (anesthesia-predominant primary operators vs. PCCM-predominant). Ongoing focus on strategies to optimize competency-based airway management training is needed, particularly at programs where anesthesia involvement limits the amount of clinical exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":72330,"journal":{"name":"ATS scholar","volume":"5 4","pages":"538-546"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734676/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Multicenter Study of Pulmonary Critical Care Trainees' Perception of Airway Management Training during Fellowship.\",\"authors\":\"Christopher Ghiathi, Anthony R Lanfranco, Janae K Heath\",\"doi\":\"10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0033OC\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is significant variability in airway management training among pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the airway management training of PCCM fellows, specifically evaluating the role of the institutional approach to intubations (anesthesia-predominant primary operators vs. PCCM-predominant) to the overall fellows' educational experience.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We performed a survey of PCCM fellows at 14 institutions to assess the perceptions of airway management training. Summary statistics were used to analyze the Likert scale responses. Based on our hypothesis of a relationship of a fellow's experience to the institutional approach to intubations, we stratified responses based on whether the primary operator for airway management for critically ill patients was generally anesthesiology or PCCM providers. Statistical significance was determined using either <i>t</i> testing (after converting Likert-style responses to continuous variables) or analysis of variance for categorical variables (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Respondents included 132 fellows across 14 PCCM programs (47% response rate), spanning all fellowship years (29% in first year [<i>n</i> = 38], 31% in second year [<i>n</i> = 41], 26% in third/fourth year [<i>n</i> = 34]). Seventy percent (<i>n</i> = 80) of fellows were very or somewhat satisfied with their airway management training. In fellows training where anesthesia providers primarily perform airway management (29% [<i>n</i> = 34]), satisfaction with training was significantly lower, as was the self-assessment of one's airway management skills. The location of airway management experience in anesthesia-predominant programs was mainly the operating room (69% [<i>n</i> = 22]), versus mainly in the intensive care unit for PCCM-predominant programs (94% [<i>n</i> = 77]). The number of completed intubations was lower for fellows in anesthesia-predominant programs (<i>P</i> = 0.02).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We found significant differences in fellows' experiences in airway management based on the institutional approach to intubations (anesthesia-predominant primary operators vs. PCCM-predominant). Ongoing focus on strategies to optimize competency-based airway management training is needed, particularly at programs where anesthesia involvement limits the amount of clinical exposure.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":72330,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ATS scholar\",\"volume\":\"5 4\",\"pages\":\"538-546\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11734676/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ATS scholar\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0033OC\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ATS scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2024-0033OC","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在肺部和重症监护医学(PCCM)研究员之间,气道管理培训存在显著差异。目的:评估PCCM研究员的气道管理培训,特别是评估机构方法插管(麻醉为主的主要操作员与PCCM为主的)对研究员整体教育经验的作用。方法:我们对14个机构的PCCM研究员进行了一项调查,以评估对气道管理培训的看法。采用汇总统计分析李克特量表反应。基于我们的假设,同事的经验与机构插管方法之间存在关系,我们根据危重患者气道管理的主要操作者通常是麻醉师还是PCCM提供者对反应进行了分层。采用t检验(将李克特式反应转换为连续变量后)或分类变量方差分析来确定统计显著性(P结果:受访者包括14个PCCM项目的132名研究员(47%的回复率),涵盖所有奖学金年份(第一年29% [n = 38],第二年31% [n = 41],第三/第四年26% [n = 34])。70% (n = 80)的研究员对他们的气道管理培训非常满意或比较满意。在麻醉提供者主要进行气道管理的同伴培训中(29% [n = 34]),对培训的满意度明显较低,对气道管理技能的自我评估也是如此。在麻醉为主的项目中,气道管理经验主要在手术室(69% [n = 22]),而在pccm为主的项目中,气道管理经验主要在重症监护病房(94% [n = 77])。在麻醉为主的项目中,完成插管的数量较低(P = 0.02)。结论:我们发现,基于机构插管方法(麻醉为主的主要操作人员与pccm为主的主要操作人员),研究员在气道管理方面的经验存在显著差异。需要持续关注优化基于能力的气道管理培训的策略,特别是在麻醉参与限制临床暴露量的项目中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A Multicenter Study of Pulmonary Critical Care Trainees' Perception of Airway Management Training during Fellowship.

Background: There is significant variability in airway management training among pulmonary and critical care medicine (PCCM) fellows.

Objective: To assess the airway management training of PCCM fellows, specifically evaluating the role of the institutional approach to intubations (anesthesia-predominant primary operators vs. PCCM-predominant) to the overall fellows' educational experience.

Methods: We performed a survey of PCCM fellows at 14 institutions to assess the perceptions of airway management training. Summary statistics were used to analyze the Likert scale responses. Based on our hypothesis of a relationship of a fellow's experience to the institutional approach to intubations, we stratified responses based on whether the primary operator for airway management for critically ill patients was generally anesthesiology or PCCM providers. Statistical significance was determined using either t testing (after converting Likert-style responses to continuous variables) or analysis of variance for categorical variables (P < 0.05).

Results: Respondents included 132 fellows across 14 PCCM programs (47% response rate), spanning all fellowship years (29% in first year [n = 38], 31% in second year [n = 41], 26% in third/fourth year [n = 34]). Seventy percent (n = 80) of fellows were very or somewhat satisfied with their airway management training. In fellows training where anesthesia providers primarily perform airway management (29% [n = 34]), satisfaction with training was significantly lower, as was the self-assessment of one's airway management skills. The location of airway management experience in anesthesia-predominant programs was mainly the operating room (69% [n = 22]), versus mainly in the intensive care unit for PCCM-predominant programs (94% [n = 77]). The number of completed intubations was lower for fellows in anesthesia-predominant programs (P = 0.02).

Conclusion: We found significant differences in fellows' experiences in airway management based on the institutional approach to intubations (anesthesia-predominant primary operators vs. PCCM-predominant). Ongoing focus on strategies to optimize competency-based airway management training is needed, particularly at programs where anesthesia involvement limits the amount of clinical exposure.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
11 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信