Perceived learning gaps in paediatric anaesthesia training: A cross-sectional survey

Le résumé fourni par la source

Background and Aims: Paediatric anaesthesia requires specialised skills to manage patients effectively, yet training often falls short of clinical needs. To address this, a survey was conducted among anaesthesia trainees and teachers to identify perceived learning gaps. Methods: A self-administered Google questionnaire was used to gather input on teaching and learning paediatric anaesthesia. Faculty and anaesthesia trainees answered 29 questions, organised into multiple sections. Data were analysed using Jeffreys Amazing Statistical Package (JASP) version 0.16.3 Arnhem; Netherlands. Results: The questionnaire was sent to 567 participants, yielding a 25.30% response rate, with 144 participants responding. Exposure to paediatric anaesthesia had a median score of 3 (good). The opportunity for performing tasks was moderate, at 40%-60%, with 47% of respondents primarily assisting rather than performing tasks. Elective placements in paediatric operating theatres were reported by 25% of students in the first 6 months, 38.19% in the second 6 months, and 36.81% during the second year. Tasks were carried out under direct proactive supervision. A positive correlation was found between mask ventilation and intubation skills, with the highest 'r' value (0.714), indicating that more opportunities for mask ventilation increased the chances for intubation. Teaching methods included interactive lectures for knowledge, hands-on practice for skills, and mentoring for the affective domain. Only 19% of respondents were exposed to children under 1 year. Conclusion: The reliance on direct proactive supervision for procedural skill training until the completion of the postgraduate anaesthesia program is concerning. This highlights the need for a curriculum that prioritises skill development, incorporating entrustment goals, suitable teaching methods, and workplace assessments.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.