• George A Mashour, Kathryn Lauer, Mary Lou V H Greenfield, Monica Vavilala, Rafi Avitsian, Andrew Kofke, Antoun Koht, and Ansgar Brambrink.
• Division of Neuroanesthesiology, Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan Medical School, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-5048, USA. gmashour@umich.edu
• J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2010 Jul 1;22(3):252-5.

AbstractThe question of accreditation and standardization of neuroanesthesia fellowship training programs in the U.S. has been discussed extensively within the field. Although numerous opinion pieces have been published, there are no data indicating the level of support or opposition for accreditation of subspecialty training among specialists in the field of neuroanesthesia. To address this gap in knowledge, a web-based survey was designed and electronically distributed to members of the Society of Neurosurgical Anesthesia and Critical Care (SNACC) that were practicing in the United States (n=339). The primary question assessed support for subspecialty accreditation. In addition, the participants were asked to rate the importance of various curricular elements for a neuroanesthesia fellowship training program. Over a 1-month period, there were 134 responses in total (40% of the sample). Ninety percent of the respondents identified themselves as having a university affiliation. Of the respondents, 64% indicated support for accreditation, 20% indicated opposition, and the remainder was equivocal. Career development, neurocritical care, and intraoperative neuromonitoring were the top 3 subjects thought to be essential to a neuroanesthesia fellowship. The majority supported a 1-year fellowship training program. These data indicate measurable support among members of SNACC for a process toward the accreditation of neuroanesthesia fellowship training programs.

14 keywords...

hide…