Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “ANESTHESIOLOGY”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2000

[Anesthesia, department of anesthesiology and anesthesiology--why has anesthesiology not been accepted socially in Japan?].

An incorrect Japanese terminology of "Masuigaku [symbol: see text]" has been used widely to express "anesthesiology" or "anaesthetics" [symbol: see text] since the first Department of Anesthesiology was established in Tokyo University in 1952. The reason why the nomenclature "Masui-gaku" is wrong is as follows: Japanese nomenclatures for clinical medical sciences should include a Chinese character "Ka [symbol: see text]" such as "nai-ka-gaku" for internal medicine, "ge-ka-gaku" for surgery and "gan-ka-gaku" for ophthalmology. Accordingly the name "Masui-gaku" is erroneous to mean "Anesthesiology" and it should be "Masui-ka-gaku" [symbol: see text]. Thus a big confusion has occurred among lay people as well as many physicians in medical field. "Ma-sui" is etymologically a Japanese word which Dr Seikei Sugita coined when he translated a Dutch edition of J. Schlesinger's monograph on ether anesthesia in 1850. "Ma [symbol: see text]" means analgesia or loss of regional sensation and "Sui [symbol: see text]" means loss of consciousness. Most people consider that "Ma [symbol: see text]" is originated from "[symbol: see text] (Hemp, Asa)" or "[symbol: see text] (Marihuana, Taima)", however, this is definitely incorrect and "Ma [symbol: see text]" of "Ma-sui" has no direct relation with the pharmacological effect of hemp. Thus the misuse of "Masui-ga-ku" might have caused serious academic and social confusions, such as misunderstanding of anesthesiologists as comedical technicians, leading to a poor social acceptance of anesthesiology and anesthesiologists for these fifty years in Japan. To correct this confused situation I would like to ask our colleagues to use correctly these nomenclatures.

Anesthesia Department, Hospital↗
PubMed2003

Recruitment of house staff into anesthesiology: a re-evaluation of factors responsible for house staff selecting anesthesiology as a career and individual training program.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To reexamine, in a follow-up to our first study, those factors responsible for house staff (i.e., residents and clinical fellows) selecting anesthesiology as a career and a specific training program, as well as house staff satisfaction with various educational aspects of our training program, and their perceptions of the future for graduating anesthesiology trainees. DESIGN: Survey questionnaire of 77 house staff at the Mayo Clinic during the 2000 to 2001 academic year. SETTING: Academic medical center. MEASUREMENTS: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted using a questionnaire to survey 77 house staff enrolled in the anesthesiology training program at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN during the 2000 to 01 academic year. All responses were anonymous. Data were compared between time epochs using an f-exact test. A p-value <or=0.05 was considered statistically significant. MAIN RESULTS: Forty-five (58%) of those surveyed responded to the questionnaire. Responses were similar to those obtained in the original study that we conducted in 1995 to 96. The most frequently cited reasons for selecting anesthesiology as a career were: it is a "hands-on" specialty, it involves the clinical application of physiology and pharmacology, and there is adequate time off. The most frequently cited reasons for selecting our training program were: diversity of training experience, prestige associated with the institution, and house staff satisfaction (i.e., morale) observed at the time of interview. House staff continued to report a very high level of satisfaction with the training program (education, clinical practice, and research opportunities). Only 58% of respondents (vs. 92% in 1995-1996) felt that downsizing of anesthesiology training programs was a national trend, none (vs. 54% in 1995-1996) anticipated difficulty obtaining a job following training, and 91% (vs. 33% in 1995-1996) felt that they had future job security. Overall, 98% (vs. 98% in 1995-1996) were pleased with their career choice, and 93% (vs. 83% in 1995-1996) would choose anesthesiology as a career if they were now graduating from medical school. CONCLUSION: Data from one institution indicate that selection of an anesthesiology career and training program remain strongly associated with concerns regarding educational experiences and postgraduate employment opportunities. In contrast to our results from our 1995-1996 study, significantly fewer house staff had concerns about securing employment following training. Our observations-coupled with favorable National Resident Matching Program results during the past few years-bode well for the future recruitment of graduating American medical students into anesthesiology.

Academic Medical Centers↗
PubMed1999

Recruitment of house staff into anesthesiology: factors responsible for house staff selecting anesthesiology as a career and individual training program.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To identify factors responsible in the selection of anesthesiology as a career by Mayo Clinic house staff (i.e., residents and clinical fellows); to evaluate their level of satisfaction with their choice of career and training program, and their perceptions of the future for anesthesiology trainees. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis using a questionnaire survey of 67 house staff enrolled in the anesthesiology training program during the 1995-1996 academic year. SETTING: Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-eight (72%) of those surveyed responded to the questionnaire. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square and Mann-Whitney rank sum tests. A p-value less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The most frequently cited reasons for selecting anesthesiology as a career included the following: it is a "hands-on" specialty, it involves clinical application of physiology and pharmacology, and it provides immediate gratification in one's work. The most frequently cited reasons for selecting our training program were the diversity of training experience, prestige associated with Mayo Clinic, and employment opportunities following training. Forty-four (92%) felt downsizing of anesthesiology training programs was a national trend, 26 (54%) anticipated difficulty obtaining a job following training, and 16 (33%) felt they had future job security. Overall, 47 (98%) were happy with their career choice, and 40 (83%) would choose anesthesiology as a career if they were now graduating from medical school. All 1996 graduates found suitable employment without difficulty. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that selection of a career in anesthesiology and training program are strongly associated with concerns regarding educational experiences and postgraduate employment opportunities.

Adult↗
PubMed2000

[New study on the history of anesthesiology (2)--who is the first Japanese to write a scientific paper for the journal "Anesthesiology"?].

The beginning of modern anesthesiology in Japan dates back to 1950 when Dr M. Saklad of Rhode Island Hospital came to Japan to give his lectures on endotracheal anesthesia and related procedures. Since then, many Japanese surgeons visited the United States to learn anesthesiology in depth and they began to write their papers for foreign journals. According to my survey of the journal "Anesthesiology" from Vol 1 (1940) through Vol 21 (1960), I found 12 scientific papers written by Japanese. The first paper by Japanese appeared in this journal published in 1955 entitled as "Observations on the action of thiopental (Pentothal) on the laryngeal reflex" by Akira Horita et al. He was born in the United States in 1928 as a son of Japanese immigrants. He was graduated from the University of Washington at Seattle to become professor or pharmacology. The first paper based on studies performed in Japan by Japanese authors appeared in 1956. It was entitled as "The spread of drugs used for spinal anesthesia" by Kitahara et al. This paper is the English translation of their Japanese paper which appeared in Nippon Rinsho Geka Ikai Zasshi entitled as "Basic Study on Spinal Anesthesia in 1953".

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed1985

A modification in the training requirements in anesthesiology: requirements for the third clinical anesthesia year. American Board of Anesthesiology.

In order to continue to enhance the educational quality of residency training in anesthesiology and ultimately to improve patient care, the American Board of Anesthesiology has adopted a modification in the curriculum for the 4-year Continuum of Education in Anesthesiology to provide for a CA-3 year replacing the Specialized Year and the Alternate Pathways. This CA-3 year will be required for residents beginning their CA-1 year of training on or after May 1, 1986. There will be a 2-year transition period beginning May 1, 1984, to facilitate its implementation.

Anesthesiology↗
PubMed1995

[Quality control in anesthesiology. Results of a prospective study following the recommendations of the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care].

The German Social Law has required quality assurance (QA) procedures since 1989. The measures must be suitable to allow "comparing investigations". In 1992 the German Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine published recommendations for QA in anaesthesia: most problems during an anaesthetic should be documented in a standardised manner, and thus, a list of 63 pitfalls, events, and complications (PECs) and five degrees of severity were defined. The goal of this study was to determine the frequency of PECs in anaesthesia and to correlate PECs with procedures and preoperative health status. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Demographic data, preoperative findings, type and duration of anaesthesia and operation, and kind and severity of PECs were integrated in an automatically readable anaesthetic data record (ARADR). During 12 months all anaesthetics in our department were documented by the ARADR; the records were read by a reading device and the data stored in a modern SQL database (Informix). Degrees of severity: I. PEC leads to reaction of anaesthetist, no impact for recovery room (RR); II. impact for RR, no impact on transfer to ward; III. significant prolongation of RR stay or additional monitoring on ward; IV. PEC leads to intensive care unit admission; V. disabling damage or death. RESULTS. In all, 18350 anaesthetics were recorded (9055 male, 9295 female); the median age was 41 years (1 day-99 years). In 4251 (23.2%) anaesthetics 5927 PECs occurred, 3412 of them involving the cardiovascular and 949 the respiratory system, the latter with a tendency to higher degrees of severity. PECs caused by technical equipment (126) or lesions caused by anaesthesists (342) had no fatal outcomes and were less severe. Patients in ASA class I had 12.3% anaesthetics with PECs, ASA II 23.3%, ASA III 33.8%, ASA IV 34.9%, and ASA V 58.5%. PECs of degrees IV and V showed a higher incidence in the higher ASA classes. There was no fatal PEC in an ASA class I patient and only one (of 13615) in an elective procedure. Emergency cases had more frequent and more severe PECs: 16 of 19 PECs of degree V were in ASA class IV and V patients and 15 in emergency situations, all of them in surgical patients. Patients with cardiovascular disease had a more frequent incidence of PECs by a factor of 1.39 to 5.93 than those without such disease. CONCLUSIONS. Standardised incident reporting by defined PECs seems a good way to describe problems in anaesthesia. The types of PECs in our study had a similar distribution to those in other investigations, but there was a tendency to less frequent fatal PECs in ASA classes I to IV and more frequent ones in ASA class V. We expect better comparability when multicenter studies are done using identical methods in the next few years. Perhaps different patients collectives with special risks will be detected; efforts in quality improvement could focus on these patients.

Adolescent↗