A survey of undergraduate teaching in anaesthesia

Currently, no well accepted and clearly defined ‘core’ curriculum for undergraduate anaesthesia teaching exists. To address this deficiency, we surveyed 73 university departments of anaesthesia and intensive care. Sixty‐five replied from South‐east Asia (12), Australasia (13), the UK and Ireland (28...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Anaesthesia 1999-01, Vol.54 (1), p.4-12
Main Authors: Cheung, V., Critchley, L. A. H., Hazlett, C., Wong, E. L. Y., Oh, T. E.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Anaesthesia
Anesthesia
Anesthesia. Intensive care medicine. Transfusions. Cell therapy and gene therapy
Anesthesiology - education
Asia, Southeastern
Australia
Biological and medical sciences
Canada
Critical Care
Curriculum
Education, Medical, Undergraduate - methods
Education, Medical, Undergraduate - organization & administration
Education
undergraduate curriculum
Educational Measurement - methods
Emergency Medicine - education
Humans
Ireland
Medical sciences
Miscellaneous
New Zealand
United Kingdom
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Currently, no well accepted and clearly defined ‘core’ curriculum for undergraduate anaesthesia teaching exists. To address this deficiency, we surveyed 73 university departments of anaesthesia and intensive care. Sixty‐five replied from South‐east Asia (12), Australasia (13), the UK and Ireland (28) and Canada (12). A questionnaire containing 37 items ranging from departmental structure to curriculum content was used. We found significant regional differences. Overall, most departments taught pharmacology of anaesthetic drugs (83%), pre‐operative assessment (92%) and care of the unconscious patient (77%). Ninety‐seven per cent taught airway management and intubation and 80% taught intravenous cannulation. Basic life support was taught by 92% and advanced life support by 71%. Fewer than half taught advanced trauma life support principles (44%). Critical care teaching was less well defined, but a consensus of schools taught respiratory failure and ventilation, management of circulatory shock and principles of sepsis and multi‐organ system failure. Practical clinical skills were taught mainly using patients and simulators, 46% had a skills laboratory and six employed a resuscitation officer. However, it should be noted that we did not assess the quality and outcome of teaching.
ISSN:0003-2409
1365-2044
DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2044.1999.00640.x