Background We sought to determine whether mannequin-based simulation can reliably characterize how board-certified anesthesiologists manage simulated medical emergencies. Our primary focus was to identify gaps in performance and to establish psychometric properties of the assessment methods. Methods A total of 263 consenting board-certified anesthesiologists participating in existing simulation-based maintenance of certification courses at one of eight simulation centers were video recorded performing simulated emergency scenarios. Each participated in two 20-min, standardized, high-fidelity simulated medical crisis scenarios, once each as primary anesthesiologist and first responder. Via a Delphi technique, an independent panel of expert anesthesiologists identified critical performance elements for each scenario. Trained, blinded anesthesiologists rated video recordings using standardized rating tools. Measures included the percentage of critical performance elements observed and holistic (one to nine ordinal scale) ratings of participant’s technical and nontechnical performance. Raters also judged whether the performance was at a level expected of a board-certified anesthesiologist. Results Rater reliability for most measures was good. In 284 simulated emergencies, participants were rated as successfully completing 81% (interquartile range, 75 to 90%) of the critical performance elements. The median rating of both technical and nontechnical holistic performance was five, distributed across the nine-point scale. Approximately one-quarter of participants received low holistic ratings (i.e., three or less). Higher-rated performances were associated with younger age but not with previous simulation experience or other individual characteristics. Calling for help was associated with better individual and team performance. Conclusions Standardized simulation-based assessment identified performance gaps informing opportunities for improvement. If a substantial proportion of experienced anesthesiologists struggle with managing medical emergencies, continuing medical education activities should be reevaluated.

Objectives Methohexital, a barbiturate anesthetic commonly used for electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), possesses dose-dependent anticonvulsant properties, and its use can interfere with effective seizure therapy in patients with high seizure thresholds. Ketamine, a NMDA-antagonist with epileptogenic properties not broadly used for ECT inductions, is a commonly used induction agent for general anesthesia. Recent studies suggest that the use of ketamine is effective in allowing successful ECT treatment in patients with high seizure thresholds without an increase in side-effects. In this preliminary study, we directly compared the recovery and re-orientation times of subjects receiving ketamine and methohexital for ECTs. Methods Twenty patients were randomized in a cross-over design to receive methohexital and ketamine for ECT inductions in alternating fashion for six trials. Primary outcome measures were recovery time (voluntary movement, respiratory effort, blood pressure, consciousness, and O2 saturation) and re-orientation time. Secondary outcome measures were individual recovery variables, side-effect occurrence, and seizure duration. Results: Overall recovery time was not significantly different between the two treatment arms (F(1,17) = 0.72, P = 0.41). Re-orientation time was faster in the methohexital arm (F(1,17) = 9.23, P = 0.007). Conclusion Ketamine inductions resulted in higher number of side-effects, higher subject dropout rates, and a longer reorientation time with respect to methohexital inductions. No significant difference in post-anesthesia recovery time was found between the ketamine and methohexital arms. Intolerability to ketamine affected a significant proportion of subjects, and suggests that ketamine should remain as an alternative or adjunctive agent for patients with high seizure thresholds.

No abstract