The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) has more than 200 accredited training sites in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore, many of which participate in ANZCA Clinical Trials Network (CTN)-endorsed clinical trials. We undertook a survey of accredited sites to determine research capability, activity and potential. With ethics committee approval an electronic survey was distributed to accredited sites in July 2015. Of 207 accredited sites, 167 were sent the questionnaire (after eliminating ineligible sites) and 128 responded. Response rates for Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore were 100%, 100%, 35%, 25% and 75% respectively. Forty-four (34%) of 128 responding sites had a head of research; 101 (80%) of 126 responding sites were active in research; 42 (33%) of 126 responding sites had no publications since January 2011 and 15 (12%) had >50 publications; 95 (76%) of 125 responding sites had at least one specialist anaesthetist engaged in research (median = 4 [range 1-25]); and 45 (36%) of 125 responding sites had at least one research coordinator (median = 2 [range 1-15]). Fifty-eight (28%) of the 207 accredited sites were identified as participating in recent ANZCA CTN-endorsed clinical trials. Research capability and activity were higher in these sites. This survey has identified a strong base upon which to expand clinical trial activity, and regions, sectors, investigators and research coordinators who may benefit from additional support.
The continuing medical education (CME) needs of anaesthetists within Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore have been largely unknown. The aim of this study was to undertake a comprehensive survey of the attitude to CME, learning preferences, attitudes and abilities relating to self-paced material, literature and information searching, preferred content and preferred approach to CME of anaesthetists within these countries. A survey tool was developed and refined for ease of use by pilot-testing. The survey was mailed to 3,156 anaesthetists throughout Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Singapore. Three options for data return were offered; postal reply, facsimile and a data entry web-page. There were 1,800 responses, which represented a response rate of 57%. The demographics of the respondents were similar to the overall demographics of Fellows of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. A large majority of respondents (92%) stated that their involvement in CME improved patient care. However, almost half the respondents reported that they have difficulty either in participating in current CME activities (31%) or implementing new knowledge into their workplace (14%). Anaesthetists within this region appear to be motivated by the need to make better decisions based on independent standards of practice. While Australia is a world leader in flexible education, it is still emerging as a discipline. Flexible education may be used to facilitate anaesthetists' participation in CME activities and in implementation of new knowledge in their workplace.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of anaesthetic trainee doctors compared to nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage, applying the appropriate cricoid pressure and producing an adequate laryngeal inlet view.
METHODS: Eighty-five participants, 42 anaesthetic trainee doctors and 43 nursing anaesthetic assistants, were asked to complete a set of questionnaires which included the correct amount of force to be applied to the cricoid cartilage. They were then asked to identify the cricoid cartilage and apply the cricoid pressure on an upper airway manikin placed on a weighing scale, and the pressure was recorded. Subsequently they applied cricoid pressure on actual anaesthetized patients following rapid sequence induction. Details regarding the cricoid pressure application and the Cormack-Lehane classification of the laryngeal view were recorded.
RESULTS: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were significantly better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in identifying the cricoid cartilage (95.2% vs. 55.8%, p=0.001). However, both groups were equally poor in the knowledge about the amount of cricoid pressure force required (11.9% vs. 9.3% respectively) and in the correct application of cricoid pressure (16.7% vs. 20.9% respectively). The three-finger technique was performed by 85.7% of the anaesthetic trainee doctors and 65.1% of the nursing anaesthetic assistants (p=0.03). There were no significant differences in the Cormack-Lehane view between both groups.
CONCLUSION: The anaesthetic trainee doctors were better than the nursing anaesthetic assistants in cricoid cartilage identification but both groups were equally poor in their knowledge and application of cricoid pressure.