Key result
The sparse literature on the safety of anaesthesia delivered by rural generalist anaesthetists is broadly grouped into five areas: training, complication rates, scope of practice, equipment, and case selection.
Why the study?
Rural generalist anaesthetists are central to healthcare in rural and remote Australia, but the current evidence regarding the safety of anaesthesia delivered by them needed clarification.
What is the current evidence of the safety of anaesthesia delivered by rural generalist anaesthetists?
Systematic Review (n=13)
What is the current evidence of the safety of anaesthesia delivered by rural generalist anaesthetists?
The sparse literature on the safety of anaesthesia delivered by rural generalist anaesthetists highlights the need to better characterize their role, training, scope of practice, and safety management.
Sparse RGA safety data warrant caution in expanding scope; leaves open optimal training, volume, and case-selection standards.
INTRODUCTION: Rural generalist anaesthetists (RGAs) are central to the delivery of health care in much of rural and remote Australia. This article details a systematic review of the literature specifically asking the question, 'What is the current evidence of the 'safety' of anaesthesia delivered by RGAs?' METHODS: Six databases were searched using terms including 'safety', 'rural', 'anaesthetics', 'general practitioners', and associated search terms. Relevant articles were assessed for rigour, and information was summarised using qualitative grid analysis that included information on the study setting, participants, methods, limitations and key result areas. The primary author developed key themes from the data, which were refined in discussion with other authors. RESULTS: The safety of RGAs was described using five concepts: appropriate training and leadership, rates of complications, volume or scope of practice, access to equipment, and case selection. CONCLUSION: RGAs are pivotal in the delivery of health care in rural and remote communities. The sparse literature available on RGA safety is broadly grouped into five areas. There is a need to characterise and describe the role of RGAs, review and revise training and education, recognise RGA scope of practice and understand how RGAs lead the management of safety and risk in their practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gilchrist et al. (2023) conducted a systematic review in Anaesthesia delivered by rural generalist anaesthetists (n=13). Anaesthesia delivered by rural generalist anaesthetists vs. Specialist anaesthetists or urban hospitals was evaluated on Safety of anaesthesia (complication rates, training, scope of practice, equipment, case selection). The sparse literature on the safety of anaesthesia delivered by rural generalist anaesthetists is broadly grouped into five areas: training, complication rates, scope of practice, equipment, and case selection.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: