Advertisement

Information Technology in Anesthesia Education

  • Viji Kurup
  • Keith J. Ruskin
Part of the Health Informatics book series (HI)

The changing face of healthcare, along with changing expectations from residents with respect to the quality of education that they receive, has challenged residency programs, to rethink the model that they use and develop new strategies with consideration of the new environment. Furthermore, the volume of information in the medical field is growing exponentially; every year, more than two million scientific papers are published in biomedical journals, and more than seven million pages of information are added to the World Wide Web everyday. Keeping pace with the volume demands the introduction of innovative methods in learning, teaching, and assessing medical professionals.

The patient population of today is sicker than those of the past, and it is not sufficient for a healthcare professional to rely solely on textbooks to stay current with the field. Further, the focus on evidence-based medicine has highlighted the need for healthcare providers to keep current with the literature and have access to the latest trends in patient care. As information technology has touched almost every aspect of life at the turn of the millennium, the healthcare profession is no exception. This chapter will discuss the various aspects of technology that have been used in medicine, with particular emphasis on residency training in anesthesia.

Keywords

Residency Program Personal Digital Assistant Continue Medical Education Discussion Board Anesthesia Resident 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Taekman J. Educational technology 2002. ASA Newsletter, May 2002Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lauritsen J, Moller AM. Clinical relevance in anesthesia journals. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2006; 19(2):166–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jonas S. The case for change in medical education in the United States. Lancet 1984; 2(8400):452–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davis D, O'Brien MA, Freemantle N, et al. Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or healthcare outcomes? JAMA 1999; 282(9):867–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    5.Swanson AG. Anderson, MB. Educating medical students. Assessing change in medical education— the road to implementation. Acad Med 1993; 68(6 Suppl):S1–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    6.Sajeva M E-learning: Web-based education. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2006; 19(6):645–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruiz JG, Mintzer MJ, Leipzig RM. The impact of E-learning in medical education. Acad Med 2006; 81(3):207–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Clark D. Psychological myths in e-learning. Med Teach 2002; 24(6):598–604PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Baker R, Dwyer F. A meta-analytic assessment of the effect of visualized instruction. Int J Instruct Media 2000; 27:417–26Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cohen JJ. Educating physicians in cyberspace. Acad Med 1995; 70(8):698PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sillence E, Briggs P, Harris PR, et al. How do patients evaluate and make use of online health information? Soc Sci Med 2007; 64(9):1853–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McMullan M. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: How this affects the patient—health professional relationship. Patient Educ Couns 2006; 63(1–2):24–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kurup V, Hersey D. The perioperative librarian: Luxury or necessity? Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2007; 20(6):585–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hersh WR, Gorman PN, Sacherek LS. Applicability and quality of information for answering clinical questions on the Web. JAMA 1998; 280(15):1307–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Wilson P. How to find the good and avoid the bad or ugly: A short guide to tools for rating quality of health information on the Internet. Br Med J 2002; 324(7337):598–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Caron S, Berton J, Beydon L. Quality of anaesthesia-related information accessed via Internet searches. Br J Anaesth 2007; 99(2):195–201PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ruskin K. Information services and the Internet. J Clin Monit Comput 1999; 15(7–8): 419–20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ruskin KJ, Kofke WA, Turndorf H. The anesthesiology discussion group: Development of a new method of communication between anesthesiologists. Anesth Analg 1995; 81(1):163–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ruskin KJ. How to get the most out of the Internet for your clinical practice. Int Anesthesiol Clin 2000; 38(4):115–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Earl MF, Neutens JA. Evidence-based medicine training for residents and students at a teaching hospital: The library's role in turning evidence into action. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1999; 87(2):211–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cimpl K. Clinical medical librarianship: A review of the literature. Bull Med Libr Assoc 1985; 73(1):21–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cimpl K. Evaluating the effectiveness of clinical medical librarian programs: A systematic review of the literature. J Med Libr Assoc 2004; 92(1):14–33Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Knight T, Brice A. Librarians, surgeons, and knowledge. Surg Clin North Am 2006; 86(1):71–90, viii–ixPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Oliver KB, Roderer NK. Working towards the informationist. Health Informatics J 2006; 12(1):41–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viji Kurup
    • 1
  • Keith J. Ruskin
    • 1
  1. 1.Yale University School of MedicineNew HavenUSA

Personalised recommendations