Standardizing nomenclature in regional anesthesia: an ASRA-ESRA Delphi consensus study of upper and lower limb nerve blocks

BACKGROUND

Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks.

METHODS

We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement.

RESULTS

A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research.

CONCLUSIONS

We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

Recommendations for effective documentation in regional anesthesia: an expert panel Delphi consensus project

Background and objectives

Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia.

Methods

Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement.

Results

Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29.

Conclusion

By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

A New Zealand based cohort study of anaesthetic trainees' career outcomes compared with previously expressed intentions

Predicting workforce requirements is a difficult but necessary part of health resource planning. A 'snapshot' workforce survey undertaken in 2002 examined issues that New Zealand anaesthesia trainees expected would influence their choice of future workplace. We have restudied the same cohort to see if that workforce survey was a good predictor of outcome. Seventy (51%) of 138 surveys were completed in 2009 compared with 100 (80%) of 138 in the 2002 survey. Eighty percent of the 2002 respondents planned consultant positions in New Zealand. We found 64% of respondents were working in New Zealand (P < 0.01). We found that family ties were an important influence on the choice of country of residence for 80% of New Zealand based respondents but only 40% of those living outside New Zealand agreed or strongly agreed with this statement (P < 0.01). Remuneration influenced country of residence for 76% of those living outside New Zealand but was important for only 2% of those resident in New Zealand (P < 0.01). Salaries in New Zealand were predominantly between NZ$150,000 and $200,000 while those overseas received between NZ$300,000 and $400,000. Of those that are resident in New Zealand, 84% had studied in a New Zealand medical school compared with 52% of those currently working overseas (P < 0.01). Our study shows that stated career intentions in a group do not predict the actual group outcomes. We suggest that 'snapshot' studies examining workforce intentions are of little value for workforce planning. However we believe an ongoing program matching career aspirations against career outcomes would be a useful tool in workforce planning.