CJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a scholarly reply
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kurrek, M.
Right arrow Articles by Fish, K.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Kurrek, M.
Right arrow Articles by Fish, K.

Canadian Journal of Anesthesia, Vol 43, 430-434, Copyright © 1996 by Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society

ARTICLES

Anaesthesia crisis resource management training: an intimidating concept, a rewarding experience

MM Kurrek and KJ Fish
Canadian Simulation Centre for Human Performance and Crisis Management Training, Sunnybrook Health Science Centre, Toronto, Canada.

PURPOSE: This two-part study was performed to identify and address anaesthetists' concerns regarding anaesthesia simulation and to evaluate the response of practitioners to simulation-based Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management Training (ACRM). METHODS: First, 150 survey questionnaires were distributed to participants of the Anaesthesia Practice '94 meeting in Toronto and to staff and resident anaesthetists at the Sunnybrook Health Science Centre. In the second part of the study, 35 anaesthetists from the Toronto area who participated in Anaesthesia Crisis Resource Management (ACRM) workshops at the Canadian Simulation Centre completed an anonymous exit evaluation questionnaire. RESULTS: Among staff anaesthetists (n = 42), 19% of the surveyed respondents had never heard about anaesthesia simulation, whereas all residents (n = 17) had heard of, or seen an anaesthesia simulator. Horizontal numerical scale ratings (from 1-10, with 10 being extremely supportive) indicated support for the purchase of a simulator (8.3 +/- 2.0 for staff, 9.2 +/- 1.1 for residents). Staff and residents anticipated substantial anxiety while training with a simulator (6.8 +/- 2.4 and 7.6 +/- 1.4 respectively, with 10 indicating extreme anxiety). Participants in the ACRM workshops at the Canadian Simulation Centre enjoyed the course (1.2 +/- 0.6, on a scale form 1 through 5, with 1 indicating total support and 5 representing no support), felt that it would be beneficial to most anaesthetists (1.2 +/- 0.5) and should be taken, on average, every 18 mo. CONCLUSIONS: Even though the majority of respondents have not been exposed to anaesthesia simulators, they appear to support their use in education strongly. Whereas substantial anxiety could delay the introduction of simulation based education, participants of ACRM workshops enjoy the courses and perceive them as very educational.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1996 by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.