Models for intensive care training. A European perspective.

The diversity of European culture is reflected in its healthcare training programs. In intensive care medicine (ICM), the differences in national training programs were so marked that it was unlikely that they could produce specialists of equivalent skills. The Competency-Based Training in Intensive Care Medicine in Europe (CoBaTrICE) program was established in 2003 as a Europe-based worldwide collaboration of national training organizations to create core competencies for ICM using consensus methodologies to establish common ground. The group's professional and research ethos created a social identity that facilitated change. The program was easily adaptable to different training structures and incorporated the voice of patients and relatives. The CoBaTrICE program has now been adopted by 15 European countries, with another 12 countries planning to adopt the training program, and is currently available in nine languages, including English. ICM is now recognized as a primary specialty in Spain, Switzerland, and the UK. There are still wide variations in structures and processes of training in ICM across Europe, although there has been agreement on a set of common program standards. The combination of a common "product specification" for an intensivist, combined with persisting variation in the educational context in which competencies are delivered, provides a rich source of research inquiry. Pedagogic research in ICM could usefully focus on the interplay between educational interventions, healthcare systems and delivery, and patient outcomes, such as including whether competency-based program are associated with lower error rates, whether communication skills training is associated with greater patient and family satisfaction, how multisource feedback might best be used to improve reflective learning and teamworking, or whether increasing the proportion of specialists trained in acute care in the hospital at weekends results in better patient outcomes.

A follow-up on Acute Pain Services in Germany compared to international survey data.

BACKGROUND After the introduction of instruments for benchmarking, certification and a national guideline for acute pain management, the aim of this study was to describe the current structure, processes and quality of German acute pain services (APS). METHODS All directors of German departments of anaesthesiology were invited to complete a postal questionnaire on structures und processes of acute pain management. The survey asked for staff, techniques and quality criteria, which enabled a comparison to previous data from 1999 and surveys from other countries. RESULTS Four hundred and eight (46%) questionnaires were returned. APS have increased considerably and are now available in 81% of the hospitals, mainly anaesthesia based. However, only 45% fulfilled the minimum quality criteria, such as the assignment of personnel, the organization of patient care during nights and weekends, written protocols for postoperative pain management, regular assessments and documenting pain scores. Staff resources varied considerably, but increased compared to 1999. Two daily rounds were performed in 71%, either by physicians and nurses (42%), by physicians only (25%) or by supervised nurses (31%). Most personnel assigned to the APS shared this work along with other duties. Only 53% of the hospitals had an integrated rotation for training their specialty trainees. CONCLUSIONS The availability of APS in Germany and other countries has increased over the last decade; however, the quality of nearly half of the APS is questionable. Against the disillusioning background of recently reported unfavourable pain-related patient outcomes, the structures, organization and quality of APS should be revisited.

The hundred most cited articles in bariatric surgery

BACKGROUND Many studies quantitatively analyzing scientific papers have appeared in the last 2 years. Citation analysis is a commonly used bibliometric method. In spite of some limitations, it remains a good measure of the impact an article has on a specific field, specialty, or a journal. The aim of this study was to analyze the qualities and characteristics of the 100 most cited articles in the field of bariatric surgery. METHODS The Thomson Reuters Web of Knowledge was used to list all bariatric surgery-related articles (BSRA) published from 1945 to 2014. The top 100 most cited BSRA in 354 surgical and high impact general journals were selected for further analysis. RESULTS Most of the articles were published in the 2000s (60%). The top 100 most cited were published in 17 of the 354 journals. Leading countries were USA followed by Canada and Australia. Most of the articles published (76%) were clinical experience articles. The most common level of evidence was IV (42%). CONCLUSIONS Many of the milestone papers in bariatric surgery have been included in this bibliometric study. A huge increase in research activity during the last decade is clearly visible in the field. It is apparent that the number of citations of an article is not related to its level of evidence; a fact that is increasingly being emphasized in surgical research.

The Quality of the Evidence According to GRADE Is Predominantly Low or Very Low in Oral Health Systematic Reviews

OBJECTIVES The main objective was to assess the credibility of the evidence using Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) in oral health systematic reviews on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and elsewhere. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Systematic Reviews or meta-analyses (January 2008-December 2013) from 14 high impact general dental and specialty dental journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were screened for meta-analyses. Data was collected at the systematic review, meta-analysis and trial level. Two reviewers applied and agreed on the GRADE rating for the selected meta-analyses. RESULTS From the 510 systematic reviews initially identified 91 reviews (41 Cochrane and 50 non-Cochrane) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of evidence was high in 2% and moderate in 18% of the included meta-analyses with no difference between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews, journal impact factor or year of publication. The most common domains prompting downgrading of the evidence were study limitations (risk of bias) and imprecision (risk of play of chance). CONCLUSION The quality of the evidence in oral health assessed using GRADE is predominantly low or very low suggesting a pressing need for more randomised clinical trials and other studies of higher quality in order to inform clinical decisions thereby reducing the risk of instituting potentially ineffective and/or harmful therapies.

The unruptured intracranial aneurysm treatment score: a multidisciplinary consensus.

OBJECTIVE We endeavored to develop an unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) treatment score (UIATS) model that includes and quantifies key factors involved in clinical decision-making in the management of UIAs and to assess agreement for this model among specialists in UIA management and research. METHODS An international multidisciplinary (neurosurgery, neuroradiology, neurology, clinical epidemiology) group of 69 specialists was convened to develop and validate the UIATS model using a Delphi consensus. For internal (39 panel members involved in identification of relevant features) and external validation (30 independent external reviewers), 30 selected UIA cases were used to analyze agreement with UIATS management recommendations based on a 5-point Likert scale (5 indicating strong agreement). Interrater agreement (IRA) was assessed with standardized coefficients of dispersion (vr*) (vr* = 0 indicating excellent agreement and vr* = 1 indicating poor agreement). RESULTS The UIATS accounts for 29 key factors in UIA management. Agreement with UIATS (mean Likert scores) was 4.2 (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.1-4.3) per reviewer for both reviewer cohorts; agreement per case was 4.3 (95% CI 4.1-4.4) for panel members and 4.5 (95% CI 4.3-4.6) for external reviewers (p = 0.017). Mean Likert scores were 4.2 (95% CI 4.1-4.3) for interventional reviewers (n = 56) and 4.1 (95% CI 3.9-4.4) for noninterventional reviewers (n = 12) (p = 0.290). Overall IRA (vr*) for both cohorts was 0.026 (95% CI 0.019-0.033). CONCLUSIONS This novel UIA decision guidance study captures an excellent consensus among highly informed individuals on UIA management, irrespective of their underlying specialty. Clinicians can use the UIATS as a comprehensive mechanism for indicating how a large group of specialists might manage an individual patient with a UIA.