This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a colleague Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Henrichs, B. M. Articles by Evers, A. S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Henrichs, B. M. Articles by Evers, A. S. Related Collections Economics and Health Care Research Education Technology

---

ECONOMICS, EDUCATION, AND POLICY

Performance of Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists and Anesthesiologists in a Simulation-Based Skills Assessment

Bernadette M. Henrichs, PhD, CRNA, CCRN^*, Michael S. Avidan, MBBCh^*, Dave J. Murray, MD^*, John R. Boulet, PhD, Joe Kras, MD^*, Beverley Krause, MS, CRNA^*, Rebecca Snider, RN, BSN^*, and Alex S. Evers, MD^*

From the *Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri; and Foundation for Advancement of International Medical Education and Research (FAIMER), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Address correspondence to Bernadette Henrichs, PhD, CRNA, CCRN, Campus Box 8054, 660 S. Euclid Ave., St. Louis, MO 63110. Address e-mail to henrichb{at}anest.wustl.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) must acquire the skills to recognize and manage a variety of acute intraoperative emergencies. A simulation-based assessment provides a useful and efficient means to evaluate these skills. In this study, we evaluated and compared the performance of board-certified anesthesiologists and CRNAs managing a set of simulated intraoperative emergencies.

METHODS: We enrolled 26 CRNAs and 35 board-certified anesthesiologists in a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. These 61 specialists each managed 8 of 12 randomly selected, scripted, intraoperative simulation exercises. Participants were expected to recognize and initiate appropriate therapy for intraoperative events during a 5-min period. Two primary raters scored 488 simulation exercises (61 participants x 8 encounters).

RESULTS: Anesthesiologists achieved a modestly higher mean overall score than CRNAs (66.6% ± 11.7 [range = 41.7%–86.7%] vs 59.9% ± 10.2 [range = 38.3%–80.4%] P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in performance between groups on individual encounters. The raters were consistent in their identification of key actions. The reliability of the eight-scenario assessment, with two raters for each scenario, was 0.80.

CONCLUSION: Although anesthesiologists, on average, achieved a modestly higher overall score, there was marked and similar variability in both groups. This wide range suggests that certification in either discipline may not yield uniform acumen in management of simulated intraoperative emergencies. In both groups, there were practitioners who failed to diagnose and treat simulated emergencies. If this is reflective of clinical practice, it represents a patient safety concern. Simulation-based assessment provides a tool to determine the ability of practitioners to respond appropriately to clinical emergencies. If all practitioners could effectively manage these critical events, the standard of patient care and ultimately patient safety could be improved.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. A. McIntosh Lake Wobegon for Anesthesia...Where Everyone Is Above Average Except Those Who Aren't: Variability in the Management of Simulated Intraoperative Critical Incidents Anesth. Analg., January 1, 2009; 108(1): 6 - 9. [Full Text] [PDF]