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 Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Google Scholar Articles by Fahy, B. G. Articles by Bensalem-Owen, M. PubMed Articles by Fahy, B. G. Articles by Bensalem-Owen, M. Related Collections Economics and Health Care Research Neuroanesthesia Education

---

ECONOMICS, EDUCATION, AND POLICY

Evaluating the Requirements of Electroencephalograph Instruction for Anesthesiology Residents

Brenda G. Fahy, MD^*, Destiny F. Chau, MD^*, and Meriem Bensalem-Owen, MD

From the Departments of *Anesthesiology, and Neurology, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Brenda G. Fahy, MD, Department of Anesthesiology, College of Medicine, University of Kentucky, 800 Rose St., Room N-260, Lexington, KY 40536. Address e-mail to eahesl2{at}email.uky.edu.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: During a 1-mo neurosurgical intensive care unit rotation, anesthesiology residents interpret electroencephalograms (EEGs) performed throughout the institution, including intraoperative EEGs. The curriculum goal is to increase familiarity with EEG use and interpretation with 20 EEG interpretations with a clinical neurophysiologist during this rotation. We aimed to determine whether the EEG curriculum goals could be achieved with fewer EEG interpretations.

METHODS: Each anesthesiology resident who participated interpreted 20 EEGs throughout the rotation. Using a 25-question evaluation tool, anesthesiology residents were assessed before interpreting any EEGs with a clinical neurophysiologist and reassessed after 10, 15, and 20 EEG interpretations. Each 25-item evaluation tool was developed to assess the impact of this EEG curriculum to gain experience with EEG monitoring and anesthetic effects using EEG tracings, and clinical EEG interpretation.

RESULTS: Eight residents completed the study. Mean scores improved from 8.00 ± 2.51 at baseline to 15.12 ± 3.00 (P < 0.001), 15.88 ± 3.18 (P < 0.001), and 18.12 ± 3.23 (P < 0.001) after 10, 15, and 20 EEG interpretations.

DISCUSSION: This innovative, collaborative approach using the expertise of the clinical neurophysiologist met the curriculum goals after 10 supervised EEG interpretations, as measured by the study assessment tool.