Abstract / Summary
BackgroundRegional anaesthesia is an integral component of contemporary anaesthetic practice and a core competency within the 2021 Royal College of Anaesthetists curriculum.Despite increasing emphasis on regional anaesthesia training, concerns remain regarding trainees' access to sufficient clinical exposure and supportive clinical supervision. ObjectiveThis study described regional anaesthesia training experiences reported by anaesthesia trainees within a United Kingdom (UK) postgraduate training programme, including training opportunities, procedural exposure, self-reported curriculum attainment and barriers to competency development. MethodsA cross-sectional electronic survey (questionnaire) was distributed to all anaesthesia trainees within the Yorkshire and Humber School of Anaesthesia between January and February 2024.The questionnaire explored access to educational resources, procedural exposure, self-reported attainment of curriculum competencies, perceived training adequacy, and perceived barriers to training.Descriptive analyses were performed, with secondary exploratory analyses examining differences in perceived training adequacy according to respondent characteristics and reported training experiences. ResultsSixty-four trainees completed the survey (estimated response rate: 25.6%).Twenty respondents (31.2%) reported sufficient opportunities to achieve curriculum-mandated regional anaesthesia competencies, while 25 (39.1%) reported insufficient opportunities.The most frequently reported barriers were lack of supportive supervising anaesthetists (60.9%) and limited access to suitable operating lists (59.4%).In exploratory comparisons, respondents reporting adequate access to clinical regional anaesthesia practice had higher perceived training adequacy scores, while respondents reporting limited access to suitable operating lists or lack of supportive supervision had lower scores.Reported access to educational resources and perceived training adequacy also varied among respondents from different training hubs.Stage 3 respondents reported variable procedural exposure across individual regional anaesthesia techniques and variable self-reported ability across anatomical regions. ConclusionsThis regional survey identified variation in reported regional anaesthesia training experiences among respondents from a single UK postgraduate training programme.Exploratory comparisons identified differences in perceived training adequacy according to reported clinical opportunities, suitable operating lists, and supportive clinical supervision; these findings are hypothesis-generating and warrant prospective evaluation.Stage 3 respondents reported variable procedural exposure and self-reported ability, neither of which should be regarded as a surrogate marker of objectively assessed competence.The findings support continued emphasis on competency-based assessment and further evaluation of supervised clinical training and consistency of curriculum delivery.