Search

This study tested the hypothesis that exposure of children prior to their third birthday to procedures requiring general anesthesia is associated with an increased incidence of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in later life. This study employed a nested, 1:2 matched-case control study design using ASD cases identified in a population-based birth cohort of children born in Olmsted County, MN from 1976 to 2000. Matching variables included sex, date of birth, and mother's age in conditional logistic regression including 499 ASD cases and 998 controls. After adjusting for birth weight and health status, there was no significant association between exposure and ASD (OR 1.27 [95% CI 0.92-1.76]), indicating that general anesthesia is not associated with an increased risk of ASD.

In 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) into its initial certification examination system. Previously, the ABA's staged examination system consisted of 2 written examinations (the BASIC and ADVANCED examinations) and the Standardized Oral Examination (SOE). The OSCE and the existing SOE are now 2 separate components of the APPLIED Examination. This report presents the results of the first-year OSCE administration. A total of 1410 candidates took both the OSCE and the SOE in 2018. Candidate performance approximated a normal distribution for both the OSCE and the SOE, and was not associated with the timing of the examination, including day of the week, morning versus afternoon session, and order of the OSCE and the SOE. Practice-based Learning and Improvement was the most difficult station, while Application of Ultrasonography was the least difficult. The correlation coefficient between SOE and OSCE scores was 0.35 ([95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.30-0.39]; P < .001). Scores for the written ADVANCED Examination were modestly correlated with scores for the SOE (r = 0.29 [95% CI, 0.25-0.34]; P < .001) and the OSCE (r = 0.15 [95% CI, 0.10-0.20]; P < .001). Most of the candidates who failed the SOE passed the OSCE, and most of the candidates who failed the OSCE passed the SOE. Of the 1410 candidates, 77 (5.5%) failed the OSCE, 155 (11.0%) failed the SOE, and 25 (1.8%) failed both. Thus, 207 (14.7%) failed at least 1 component of the APPLIED Examination. Adding an OSCE to a board certification examination system is feasible. Preliminary evidence indicates that the OSCE measures aspects of candidate abilities distinct from those measured by other examinations used for initial board certification.

With its first administration of an Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) in 2018, the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) became the first US medical specialty certifying board to incorporate this type of assessment into its high-stakes certification examination system. The fundamental rationale for the ABA's introduction of the OSCE is to include an assessment that allows candidates for board certification to demonstrate what they actually "do" in domains relevant to clinical practice. Inherent in this rationale is that the OSCE will capture competencies not well assessed in the current written and oral examinations-competencies that will allow the ABA to judge whether a candidate meets the standards expected for board certification more properly. This special article describes the ABA's journey from initial conceptualization through first administration of the OSCE, including the format of the OSCE, the process for scenario development, the standardized patient program that supports OSCE administration, examiner training, scoring, and future assessment of reliability, validity, and impact of the OSCE. This information will be beneficial to both those involved in the initial certification process, such as residency graduate candidates and program directors, and others contemplating the use of high-stakes summative OSCE assessments.

Objectives: Racial disparities are pervasive in access to pediatric surgery. The goal of this study was to test the hypotheses that, compared with White children, non‐White and Hispanic children: (1) were less likely to attend evaluations by otolaryngologists after a diagnosis of otitis media (OM) eligible for surgical referral, and (2) these children were less likely to receive tympanostomy tube (TT) after surgical consultation. Methods: The OptumLabs Data Warehouse is a de‐identified claims database of privately insured enrollees. Guidelines on the management of OMs suggest that children should be evaluated for surgery if they have recurrent acute OM or chronic OM with effusion. A cohort of children who were diagnosed with OM were constructed. For Hypothesis 1, the primary outcome was otolaryngology office visit within 6 months of a diagnosis of recurrent or chronic OM. For Hypothesis 2, the outcome was TT placement within 6 months following the otolaryngology office visit. Cox regression models were used to determine the relationship between race/ethnicity and the primary outcomes. Results: Among 187,776 children with OMs, 72,774 (38.8%) had otolaryngology visits. In a multivariate Cox model, the hazard ratios of attending otolaryngology visit for Black, Hispanic, and Asian children were 0.93 (95% CI,0.90, 0.96), 0.86 (0.83, 0.88), and 0.74 (0.71, 0.77), compared with White children. Among the children evaluated by otolaryngologists, 46,554 (63.97%) received TT. Black, Hispanic, and Asian children with recurrent acute OM had lower likelihood of receiving TT. Conclusions: Racial disparities in attending otolaryngology office visit contributed to the disparities in receiving TT. Quality of Evidence: Level 3 Laryngoscope, 134:3846–3852, 2024 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to evaluate two online instructional design features, namely adaptation to learner prior knowledge and use of questions to enhance interactivity in online portrayals of physician-patient encounters, in the context of instructing surgical specialists to deliver perioperative tobacco interventions. An online learning module on perioperative tobacco control was developed, in formats incorporating permutations of adaptive/non-adaptive and high/low interactivity (i.e., 2 × 2 factorial design). Participants (a national sample of US anesthesiology residents) were randomly assigned to module format. Primary outcomes included tobacco knowledge, time to complete the module, and self-efficacy in delivering tobacco interventions. One hundred fourteen residents completed the module, which required a median of 60 min (interquartile range 49, 138). The difference in post-module tobacco knowledge score was similar for adaptive and non-adaptive formats [mean difference 0.3 of 10 possible (95% CI - 0.3, 1.0), p = 0.25] but time was shorter for the adaptive format [- 7 min (95% CI - 14, 0), p = 0.01] and knowledge efficiency (knowledge score divided by time) was higher [0.08 units (95% 0.03, 0.14), p = 0.004]. The level of interactivity had no significant effect on self-efficacy [- 0.1 on a 5-point scale (95% CI - 0.3, 0.1), p = 0.50] in delivering tobacco interventions (both outcomes using 5-point scales). Adapting online instruction to learners' prior knowledge appears to improve the efficiency of learning; adaptation should be implemented when feasible. Adding features that encourage learner interaction in an online course does not necessarily improve learning outcomes.

Objective: The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simplified PESI (sPESI) predict mortality for patients with PE. We compared PESI/sPESI to the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV (APACHE-IV) in predicting mortality in patients with PE admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Additionally, we assessed the performance of a novel ICU-sPESI score created by adding three clinical variables associated with acuity of PE presentation (intubation, confusion [altered mental status], use of vasoactive infusions) to sPESI. Materials and Methods: Using the eICU Collaborative Research Database from 2014 to 2015, we conducted a large retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the ICU with a primary diagnosis of PE. We calculated APACHE-IV, PESI, sPESI, and ICU-sPESI scores and compared their performance for predicting in-hospital mortality using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Score thresholds for >99% negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for each score. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results: We included 1424 PE cases. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% [95% CI: 5.1%-7.6%]. AUROC for APACHE-IV, PESI, and sPESI were 0.870, 0.848, and 0.777, respectively. APACHE-IV and PESI outperformed sPESI (P < 0.01 for both comparisons), while APACHE-IV and PESI demonstrated similar performance (P = 0.322). The ICU-sPESI performance was similar to APACHE-IV and PESI (AUROC = 0.847; AUROC comparison: APACHE-IV vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.396; PESI vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.945). Hospital mortality for ICU-sPESI scores 0-2 was 1.1%, and for scores 3, 4, 5, 6, and ≥7 was 8.6%, 11.7%, 29.2%, 37.5%, and 76.9%, respectively. Score thresholds for >99% NPV were ≤48 for APACHE-IV, ≤115 for PESI, and 0 points for sPESI and ICU-sPESI. Conclusions: By accounting for severity of PE presentation, our newly proposed ICU-sPESI score provided improved PE mortality prediction compared to the original sPESI score and offered excellent discrimination of mortality risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the Fifth Pediatric Anesthesia Neurodevelopmental Assessment Symposium, experts and stakeholders met to present and discuss recent advances made in the study of neurodevelopmental outcomes after exposure to anesthetic drugs in infants and children. This article summarizes the update of 5 ongoing clinical studies: General Anesthesia compared to Spinal Anesthesia, Toxicity of Remifentanil and Dexmedetomidine, Mayo Anesthesia Safety in Kids, the University of California San Francisco human cohort study, and Columbia University Medical Center Neonatal Magnetic Resonance Imaging study. The purpose of this summary is to discuss the contributions and limitations of these studies, how they fit into the published literature, and what questions remain to be answered.