ArticleCureus2024
The Art and Science of Securing an Anaesthesiology Training Job: A Survey of the Key Factors in Two Australian Tertiary Hospitals.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background There is no specific formal guidance on what prospective trainees must focus on to secure an anaesthetic training position in Australia, and there is little in the literature to advise both applicants and their mentors. Method This study aims to ascertain the views of anaesthetic clinicians from two Australian tertiary referral hospitals on what they consider most important for selection. A paper-based survey was conducted at both hospitals across three groups, totalling 104 participants with a 100% response rate. Results The characteristics most agreed upon to be of at least some importance were clinical anaesthetic knowledge (98%, 102/104), teaching (95%, 99/104), basic science and courses (94%, 98/104), other critical care experience (93%, 97/104), and anaesthetic experience for more than six months (92%, 96/104). Of these, anaesthetic experience of greater than six months, non-anaesthetic critical care experience, and the completion of relevant courses were felt to be most important. Furthermore, good referee reports (95%, 99/104), especially those that come from anaesthetists (75%, 78/104) as well as having previous experience working in the institution applied to (88%, 92/104) were also seen as important factors. 'Non-technical' skills (40%, 42/104) were also regarded as an important factor, with immense competition for a few training positions (45%, 47/104) as the greatest barrier. When it came to selection, prevocational trainees consistently ranked the majority of criteria higher than accredited trainees or specialists. Conclusion This staff survey in two Australian hospitals has shed light on factors considered critical in securing an anaesthetic training position. It underscores the significance of clinical anaesthetic knowledge, basic science proficiency, and relevant critical care experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.