Background and objectives While there are several published recommendations and guidelines for trainees undertaking subspecialty Fellowships in regional anesthesia, a similar document describing a core regional anesthesia curriculum for non-fellowship trainees is less well defined. We aimed to produce an international consensus for the training and teaching of regional anesthesia that is applicable for the majority of worldwide anesthesiologists.
Methods This anonymous, electronic Delphi study was conducted over two rounds and distributed to current and immediate past (within 5 years) directors of regional anesthesia training worldwide. The steering committee formulated an initial list of items covering nerve block techniques, learning objectives and skills assessment and volume of practice, relevant to a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Participants scored these items in order of importance using a 10-point Likert scale, with free-text feedback. Strong consensus items were defined as highest importance (score ≥8) by ≥70% of all participants.
Results 469 participants/586 invitations (80.0% response) scored in round 1, and 402/469 participants (85.7% response) scored in round 2. Participants represented 66 countries. Strong consensus was reached for 8 core peripheral and neuraxial blocks and 17 items describing learning objectives and skills assessment. Volume of practice for peripheral blocks was uniformly 16–20 blocks per anatomical region, while ≥50 neuraxial blocks were considered minimum.
Conclusions This international consensus study provides specific information for designing a non-fellowship regional anesthesia curriculum. Implementation of a standardized curriculum has benefits for patient care through improving quality of training and quality of nerve blocks.
- regional anesthesia
- nerve block
Data availability statement
Data are available upon reasonable request
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Twitter @AlwinChuan, @Dr_M_ORourke, @LloydTurbitt, @TheLansdowns, @EMARIANOMD, @ajrmacfarlane, @amit_pawa
Contributors AC and RR were involved in conceptualizing the study. All authors contributed to the final study protocol. All authors were involved in inviting participants to commence round 1. BJ was data manager for the REDCap server. AC, RR, and BJ were involved in data synthesis. AC drafted the initial manuscript, and all authors revised and approved the final manuscript.
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests Alan Macfarlane: received consultancy fees from Intelligent Ultrasound. Amit Pawa: received honoraria from GE Healthcare, Sintetica UK, Pacira and Butterfly Net Inc. Have also consulted for B Braun Medical Ltd. All other authors declare no conflicts or competing interests.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.