Subconjunctival versus peribulbar anesthesia in trabeculectomy:A prospective, randomized study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: To compare the use of subconjunctival and peribulbar anesthesia for trabeculectomy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing trabeculectomy were prospectively randomized to receive either peribulbar or subconjunctival anesthesia. Peribulbar anesthesia consisted of a 3-ml inferior and a 1-ml superior injection of a 1:1 mixture of 2% mepivacaine, 0.75% bupivacaine, and hyaluronidase. Subconjunctival anesthesia consisted of a 1- to 2-ml injection of the same mixture without hyaluronidase in the superotemporal quadrant. Intraoperative pain, presence of eye movements, and complications during surgery were evaluated. RESULTS: The frequency and intensity of pain was statistically similar between the two groups. All episodes of pain (20% in the subconjunctival group and 6.6% in the peribulbar group) were rated as mild. Eye movement was more common in the subconjunctival group than in the peribulbar group, but it was controlled by verbal command and did not interfere with the procedure. No clinically significant complications occurred during surgery. CONCLUSION: Subconjunctival anesthesia is an effective alternative to peribulbar anesthesia for trabeculectomy.

The view from over there:reframing the OSCE through the experience of standardised patient raters

Ratings awarded by standardised patients (SPs) in UK objective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) are typically based on humanistic (non-technical) skills and are complementary to clinician-examiner ratings. In psychometric terms, SP ratings appear to differ from examiner ratings and improve reliability. For the first time, we used qualitative methods from a constructivist perspective to explore SP experiences of rating, and consider how these impact our understanding of assessment.

The student experience in Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs): phenomenological analysis

Background and purpose
The dominant psychometric discourse of OSCEs may lead to unexpected problems, such as a checklist-based student performance1 which under emphasises the clinical relationship with student and standardised patient (SP). Such encounters can be dehumanising for SPs2 and have implications for what students learn about relational skills through the assessment process. In this study we explore medical students’ experiences of undertaking OSCEs using a phenomenological frame.
Methodology
Interpretative phenomenological analysis is a form of qualitative methodology which has strong resonance with existentialism and focuses on the lived experience without significant reference to external political or discursive
forces.
Six 4th year undergraduate medical students from Queen’s University Belfast were recruited in December 2013. Maximum variation sampling was used. Students were interviewed by a researcher in the week prior to the
OSCE and then again in the week following the OSCE in Jan 2014. Interviews were minimally structured in order to be open to respondents, rather than adhering to a fixed topic guide, but focussed on participants’ experiences, thoughts and feelings about taking part in OSCEs. Interviews were audio-recorded and
transcribed. Students were also asked to complete a short diary entry in the days prior to the OSCEs and another immediately following. Diary entries were written, emailed or audio-recorded at student’s preference.
Results
Transcripts are currently being analysed by interpretative phenomenological analysis. Preliminary analysis has demonstrated the significance of students’ relationships within the OSCE triad (student, SP and examiner); the effect of the immediate examination environment; realism versus roleplay; students’ perceptions of the purpose of assessment; and coping mechanisms.
Full results will be available by the time of the conference.
Conclusion and Discussion
Understanding the student experience in OSCEs is a crucial step in understanding the complex construction of relationships within the OSCE triad. The focus in OSCEs is typically on standardisation and reliability, but in exploring social interactions we may refocus attention on their inherent potential for learning and effects on both students and patients.
References
1. Hodges B. Medical education and the maintenance of incompetence. Med Teach 2006;28(8):690-6
2. Johnston JL, Lundy G, McCullough M, Gormley GJ. The view from over there: reframing the OSCE through the experience of standardised patient
raters. Med Educ 2013;47(9):899-909