Background and objectivesWhile there are several published recommendations and guidelines for trainees undertaking subspecialty Fellowships in regional anesthesia, a similar document describing a core regional anesthesia curriculum for non-fellowship trainees is less well defined. We aimed to produce an international consensus for the training and teaching of regional anesthesia that is applicable for the majority of worldwide anesthesiologists.MethodsThis anonymous, electronic Delphi study was conducted over two rounds and distributed to current and immediate past (within 5 years) directors of regional anesthesia training worldwide. The steering committee formulated an initial list of items covering nerve block techniques, learning objectives and skills assessment and volume of practice, relevant to a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Participants scored these items in order of importance using a 10-point Likert scale, with free-text feedback. Strong consensus items were defined as highest importance (score ≥8) by ≥70% of all participants.Results469 participants/586 invitations (80.0% response) scored in round 1, and 402/469 participants (85.7% response) scored in round 2. Participants represented 66 countries. Strong consensus was reached for 8 core peripheral and neuraxial blocks and 17 items describing learning objectives and skills assessment. Volume of practice for peripheral blocks was uniformly 16–20 blocks per anatomical region, while ≥50 neuraxial blocks were considered minimum.ConclusionsThis international consensus study provides specific information for designing a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Implementation of a standardized curriculum has benefits for patient care through improving quality of training and quality of nerve blocks.

The learning curve for novices developing regional anaesthesia skills, such as real-time ultrasound-guided needle manipulation, may be affected by innate visuospatial ability, as this influences spatial cognition and motor coordination. We conducted a multinational randomised controlled trial to test if novices with low visuospatial ability would perform better at an ultrasound-guided needling task with deliberate practice training than with discovery learning. Visuospatial ability was evaluated using the mental rotations test-A. We recruited 140 medical students and randomly allocated them into low-ability control (discovery learning), low-ability intervention (received deliberate practice), high-ability control, and high-ability intervention groups. Primary outcome was the time taken to complete the needling task, and there was no significant difference between groups: median (IQR [range]) low-ability control 125 s (69-237 [43-600 s]); low-ability intervention 163 s (116-276 [44-600 s]); highability control 130 s (80-210 [41-384 s]); and high-ability intervention 177 s (113-285 [43-547 s]), p = 0.06. No difference was found using the global rating scale: mean (95%CI) low-ability control 53% (95%CI 46-60%); lowability intervention 61% (95%CI 53-68%); high-ability control 63% (95%CI 56-70%); and high-ability intervention 66% (95%CI 60-72%), p = 0.05. For overall procedure pass/fail, the low-ability control group pass rate of 42% (14/ 33) was significantly less than the other three groups: low-ability intervention 69% (25/36); high-ability control 68% (25/37); and high-ability intervention 85% (29/34) p = 0.003. Further research is required to determine the role of visuospatial ability screening in training for ultrasound-guided needle skills.