Anaesthesiology education and training in Germany. Results from a representative questionnaire

Citation
Ka. Lehmann et Jh. Schultz, Anaesthesiology education and training in Germany. Results from a representative questionnaire, ANAESTHESIS, 50(4), 2001, pp. 248-261
Citations number
87
Categorie Soggetti
Aneshtesia & Intensive Care
Journal title
ANAESTHESIST
ISSN journal
00032417 → ACNP
Volume
50
Issue
4
Year of publication
2001
Pages
248 - 261
Database
ISI
SICI code
0003-2417(200104)50:4<248:AEATIG>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
The aim of the present investigation, initiated ed by the German Academy of Education in Anaesthesiology (DAAF), was to obtain valid information about education and training strategies of German anaesthetists, in order to hig hlight weaknesses and strengths for better planning and performance of futu re efforts in this area. For this reason, a questionnaire with 23 items was distributed to 2000 German anaesthetists during the years 1993-1995 and of these 1290 questionnaires could then be evaluated (response rate 64.5%). T he most important means of education and training were classical media such as text books and journals. Modern techniques such as videos, tapes or com puter-assisted anaesthesia simulators were poorly used. Refresher courses, repetitoria and hospitations in other departments were, despite infrequent use, considered to be effective means of education and training and should be made more available. Systematic theoretical education was provided parti cularly seldom in most hospitals. Respondents considered anaesthetic compli cations and mishaps, intensive care and pain medicine to be the main top to pics for continuing medical education. German anaesthetists seem highly mot ivated for education and training and spend on average about 5.5 h per week for personal learning and refreshing,a figure that is quite comparable to international standards. Hospital and department heads are mostly believed to have positive attitudes to education and training. Most respondents were in favour of strict rules for education and training measures, which inclu des the obligation to prove their certified attendance (as yet not required in Germany). On the other hand,the majority voted against making the conti nued recognition as a specialist in anaesthesiology dependent on completion of a performance control.