The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Response of Anesthesia Trainees to Simulated Critical Incidents
Abstract
Using a comprehensive anesthesia simulation environment (CASE 1.2) we studied the response of anesthesia trainees (10 first-year residents and 9 second-year residents) to five simulated critical incidents: 1) endobronchial intubation; 2) kinked IV; 3) atrial fibrillation with hypotension; 4) breathing circuit disconnection; 5) cardiac arrest. Simulations were videotaped, and the response times for detecting and initiating correction of the problems were measured. Different problems had significantly different response characteristics. Breathing circuit disconnection and cardiac arrest were quickly detected (21 +/- 17 seconds; 7 +/- 5 seconds), and correction was begun quickly, although major errors in managing the cardiac arrest occurred in 58% of cases. Endobronchial intubation and atrial fibrillation took longer than the other problems to detect (105 +/- 142 seconds; 111 +/- 158 seconds) and to correct (555 +/- 358 seconds; 365 +/- 121 seconds). Intravenous kink was detected more slowly (238 +/- 269 seconds) but once discovered was quickly corrected. The response of different individuals was highly variable; experience level was a significant factor for correction (P = 0.03) but not for detection of problems overall. Because of high individual variation, experience was not a significant factor in correcting any signal problem. The data suggest that some types of problems are harder to handle than others and that individuals vary widely in their problem-handling abilities. Experience is a beneficial factor in anesthesia problem solving but not in a simple fashion. Vigilant detection of problems is only the first step in a complex response pathway that might be strengthened by improved protocols and repeated practice.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Barry Issenberg, S., Mcgaghie, W. C., Petrusa, E. R., Lee Gordon, D., & Scalese, R. J. (2005) · Medical Teacher · doi:10.1080/01421590500046924 · Cited by 3,966
The Utility of Simulation in Medical Education: What Is the Evidence?
Okuda, Y., Bryson, E. O., DeMaria, S., Jacobson, L., Quinones, J., Shen, B., & Levine, A. I. (2009) · Mount Sinai Journal of Medicine: A Journal of Translational and Personalized Medicine · doi:10.1002/msj.20127 · Cited by 1,201
Simulation Technology for Health Care Professional Skills Training and Assessment
Issenberg, S. B. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.861 · Cited by 914
Simulation-Based Training in Anesthesia Crisis Resource Management (ACRM): A Decade of Experience
Gaba, D. M., Howard, S. K., Fish, K. J., Smith, B. E., & Sowb, Y. A. (2001) · Simulation & Gaming · doi:10.1177/104687810103200206 · Cited by 733
Self-citationA brief history of the development of mannequin simulators for clinical education and training
Cooper, J. B., & Taqueti, V. R. (2008) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.009886 · Cited by 584
Metadata
- Authors
- Gaba, D. M., & DeAnda, A.
- Venue
- Anesthesia & Analgesia
- Published
- 1989-04
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 444???451
- ISSN
- 0003-2999 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2112783269
- Cited by
- 159
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Response of Anesthesia Trainees to Simulated Critical Incidents. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1213/00000539-198904000-00004
- The paper
- Gaba, D. M., & DeAnda, A. (1989). The Response of Anesthesia Trainees to Simulated Critical Incidents. Anesthesia & Analgesia. https://doi.org/10.1213/00000539-198904000-00004
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.