Clinical Assistant Professor, Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine
Fellowship: Stanford University Anesthesiology Fellowships (2017) CA
Board Certification: Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada, Anesthesia (2016)
Residency: University of Saskatchewan (2016) Canada
Medical Education: University of Saskatchewan College of Medicine (2011) Canada
Virtual Compared to In-Person Obstetric Anesthesiology Trainee Education During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Short Report.
2022; 14 (6): e26423
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic brought many changes to medical training, including in-person education platforms being disbanded and replaced with virtual education. At our institution, dedicated obstetric anesthesiology teaching for residents and fellows occurs daily and is highly valued and rated. In March 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we changed the teaching platform from in-person to virtual teaching (via video communication). We subsequently surveyed residents, fellows, and attendings to determine the impact of virtual compared with in-person teaching.METHODS: To assess the impact of this change, an electronic survey was sent to 10 anesthesiology residents on their 2nd obstetric anesthesiology rotation, and 10 residents on their 1st rotation, respectively. The electronic survey was also sent to three fellows and eight obstetric anesthesiology attendings. Answers were based on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree).RESULTS: The results for 1st rotation residents were higher in all domains compared with 2nd rotation residents and fellows, where "quality" achieved statistical significance (p=0.009) between 1st and 2nd rotation residents. "Engagement" was overall the most impacted domain for trainees. Attendings did not feel that virtual teaching impacted their ability to provide adequate education, however, learner engagement was again the lowest rated domain, and teachers strongly favored resuming in-person teaching.CONCLUSIONS: Virtual teaching is an appropriate alternative when in-person teaching is not possible. Future initiatives are needed to improve engagement and better facilitate virtual teaching.
View details for DOI 10.7759/cureus.26423
View details for PubMedID 35915679
Assessing the Association Between Blood Loss and Postoperative Hemoglobin After Cesarean Delivery: A Prospective Study of 4 Blood Loss Measurement Modalities.
Anesthesia and analgesia
BACKGROUND: Visual estimation and gravimetric methods are commonly used to quantify the volume of blood loss during cesarean delivery (CD). However, the correlation between blood loss and post-CD hemoglobin (Hb) is poorly studied, and it is unclear whether the correlation varies according to how blood loss is measured.METHODS: After obtaining Institutional Review Board approval, we performed a prospective study of 61 women undergoing CD to assess the relations between post-CD Hb and blood loss measured using 4 modalities: gravimetric blood loss measurement (gBL), visual blood loss estimation by a blinded obstetrician (oBL) and anesthesiologist (aBL), and the Triton System (tBL). Hb was measured preoperatively and within 10 minutes after CD. gBL was quantified as blood volume in a suction canister in addition to the weight of blood-soaked sponges. tBL was measured with the Triton System by photographing blood-soaked sponges and suction canister contents. To assess the relation between blood loss and post-CD Hb, we performed correlation analyses and compared the magnitude of the correlations across the 4 measurement modalities using William t test. A Bonferroni correction was set to identify a statistically significant correlation (P < .0125) and statistically significant differences between correlation coefficients (P < .008).RESULTS: The mean (standard deviation) preoperative Hb was 12 (1.1) g/dL and post-CD Hb was 11.3 (1.0) g/dL. Median (interquartile range) values for gBL, oBL, aBL, and tBL were 672 mL (266-970), 700 mL (600-800), 750 mL (600-1000), and 496 mL (374-729), respectively. A statistically significant but weak correlation was observed between tBL and post-CD Hb (r = -0.33; P = .01). No statistically significant correlations were observed among aBL (r = -0.25; P = .06), oBL (r = -0.2; P = .13), and gBL (r = -0.3; P = .03) with post-CD Hb. We did not detect any significant differences between any 2 correlation coefficients across the 4 modalities.CONCLUSIONS: Given that we observed only weak correlations between each modality with post-CD Hb and no significant differences in the magnitude of the correlations across the 4 modalities, there may be limited clinical utility in estimating post-CD Hb from blood loss values measured with any of the 4 modalities.
View details for PubMedID 29847380