ArticleCanadian medical education journal2025
Improving anesthesia resident wellness: a facilitated peer discussion group evaluated with a pre-/post-intervention survey.
Article in Canadian medical education journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitated Peer Discussion for Promoting Better Resident Wellness in Anesthesia Trainees: Qualitative Program Evaluation.JMIR perioperative medicine · 2025Article
- The CMEJ profile: a strong contribution to health professions education in Canada and around the world.Canadian medical education journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Many residents report a second victim response following near-miss events during their pediatric anesthesia rotation with consequences for their mental and physical wellbeing. This study investigated the impact of a Better Resident Wellness (BREW) initiative at our tertiary pediatric centre. Methods: We invited anesthesia residents to complete a survey at the start of their pediatric rotation. Questions included the Second Victim Experience and Support Tool (SVEST). During their rotation, residents attended weekly BREW rounds, a one-hour peer discussion facilitated by a psychologist. They provided feedback in a follow-up survey, including repeat SVEST. Results: 33/48 (69%) invited residents completed pre- and post-surveys Oct/2021-Feb/2023: all had attended one or more BREW rounds; 32/33 (97%) considered BREW helpful, safe, and would recommend to future residents; perceived benefits included improved morale (30/33, 91%) and clinical care (23/33, 70%). SVEST indicated a second victim response for 17/32 (53%) at the start and 7/32 (22%) at the end of their rotation (odds ratio 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.82, Conclusion: BREW offers anesthesia residents a desirable and beneficial support resource. Other residency programs should consider integrating facilitated peer discussion into their curriculum.
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.