Anaesthetists' attitudes towards an anaesthesia simulator. A comparative survey: U.S.A. and Australia

Anaesthesia simulation has been suggested as a method to enhance the training of clinicians without exposing patient to risk. Recently, two anaesthesia simulators have become commercially available in the U.S.A. Attitudes towards anaesthesia simulators have not been previously surveyed. With institutional approval, a survey questionnaire was given to 1. all clinical staff of the Department of Anesthesiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, and 2. all anaesthetists attending the Annual General Meeting of the Australian Society of Anaesthetists. An information sheet containing details about anaesthesia simulation in general and the special capabilities of a particular commercial anaesthesia simulator was included with the survey instrument. The survey was anonymous and contained 15 questions. Attitudinal responses were recorded using an anchored visual analog 100 mm scale. We surveyed anaesthetists during September-October 1993. Completed forms were returned by 183 anaesthetists. Respondents were aged 25-67 years (mean age 41 +/- 10 yr) and were grouped by staff position (78% faculty, 22% trainees), sex (79% male; 21% female), country of practice (44% Aust, 56% U.S.A.) and years in practice. Seventy-three per cent staff were in favour (VAS > 60) of departmental purchase of a simulator (with no significant difference between countries) and 76% expressed willingness (VAS > 60) to undergo testing in their own time (with Australian anaesthetists significantly more willing to do so). However, 65% were not in favour (VAS < 40) of the compulsory use of a simulator for re-certification or re-accreditation of anaesthesia practitioners, with American anaesthetists (anesthesiologists) significantly more opposed to it. The most frequent comment related to the cost. There is majority support for the purchase of an anaesthesia simulator but there is widespread concern for its high cost. In general, anaesthesia simulation is perceived more as an education tool rather than an instrument for (re)certification.