National postgraduate medical curriculum: enhancing anaesthesiology training in Malaysia

Postgraduate medical education in Malaysia started in 1973 with the launch of two clinical postgraduate programmes, Master of Psychological Medicine and Master of Pathology, by Universiti Malaya. Subsequently, the Government of Malaysia decided the responsibility for postgraduate medical education should rest with the universities, with the involvement of the Academy of Medicine of Malaysia (AMM) and the Ministry of Health (MOH). To date, Malaysian universities offer 23 postgraduate clinical programmes, including Master of Anaesthesiology. These programmes are conducted at individual universities, but in the spirit of uniformity, they are run in collaboration with all universities offering similar programmes as well as the AMM, and the MOH

Anaesthesiology & Critical Care Postgraduate Training in Malaysia : training curriculum

This document is the National Postgraduate Medical Curriculum (NPMC) for Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, and is part of the NPMC Project which is intended to cover the development of curricula for all clinical medical specialists in Malaysia. It is to ensure that the training is consistent and competency based, and meets the standards required by the respective national bodies and the National Specialist Register (NSR)

Value-based medicine and precision medicine in anaesthesia

Evidence-based medicine has become the part and parcel of the practice of medicine nowadays. It integrates patient preference with evidence and clinicians’ experience, leading to the improvement in the length of life.1 However, concern arises that it does not consider quality of life; hence, the concept of value-based medicine has become increasingly popular. Value-based medicine incorporates patient-perceived values that emphasise quality of life. In addition, it also considers the cost of intervention, the goals of which is to improve the quality of health care and efficient use of resources. The concept was first introduced by Brown et al., who defined it as “the practice of medicine incorporating the highest level of evidence-based data with the patient-perceived value conferred by health care interventions for the resources expended.

Effect of single-dose dexmedetomidine on postoperative recovery after ambulatory ureteroscopy and ureteric stenting: a double blind randomized controlled study

Background: Ambulatory surgery has recently gain popularity, as it is a good method of optimizing hospital resources utilization. To support ambulatory surgery, anaesthetic goals now revolve around patients' early recovery with minimal pain and nausea, expedient discharge home and prompt resumption of activities of daily living. In this study, we evaluated the effect of a single pre-induction dose of dexmedetomidine on anaesthetic requirements, postoperative pain and clinical recovery after ambulatory ureteroscopy andureteric stenting under general anaesthesia. Methods: Sixty patients were randomised to receive IV dexmedetomidine 0.5 μg.kg-1 (Group DEX, n = 30) or IV saline (Group P, n = 30). General anaesthesia was maintained with Sevoflurane: oxygen: air, titrated to BIS 40-60. Pain intensity, sedation, rescue analgesics, nausea/vomiting and resumption of daily activities were recorded at 1 h, and postoperative day (POD) 1-5. Results: Group DEX patients had significant reduction in sevoflurane minimum alveolar concentration (MAC), mean (SD) DEX vs. Placebo 0.6 (0.2) vs. 0.9 (0.1), p = 0.037; reduced postoperative resting pain at 1 h (VAS 0-10) (mean (SD) 1.00 (1.84) vs. 2.63 (2.78), p = 0.004), POD 1 (mean (SD) 1.50 (1.48) vs. 2.87 (2.72), p = 0.002), POD 2 (0.53 (0.97) vs. 1.73 (1.96), p = 0.001) and POD 3 (0.30 (0.75) vs. 0.89 (1.49), p = 0.001). DEX patients also had less pain on movement POD 1 (3.00 (2.12) vs. 4.30 (3.10), p = 0.043) and POD 2 (2.10 (1.98) vs. 3.10 (2.46), p = 0.040), with higher resumption of daily activities by 48 h compared to placebo, 87% vs. 63%, p = 0.04. Conclusions: We conclude that a single dose of dexmedetomidine was a useful adjuvant in reducing MAC and postoperative pain (at 1 h and POD 1-3), facilitating faster return to daily activities by 48 h

Comparison of clinical performance of size 1.5 Supreme™ LMA and Proseal™ LMA among Asian children: a randomized controlled trial

To date, most of the studies on safety and efficacy of supraglottic airway devices were done in Caucasian patients, and the results may not be extrapolated to Asian patients due to the different airway anatomy. We conducted this study to compare Supreme™ LMA (SLMA) and Proseal™ LMA (PLMA) size 1.5 in anaesthetized children among an Asian population. This prospective randomized clinical trial was conducted in a tertiary teaching hospital from September 2013 until May 2016. Sixty children, weighing 5–10 kg, who were scheduled for elective surgery under general anaesthesia were recruited and completed the study. Patients were randomly assigned to have either SLMA or PLMA as the airway device for general anaesthesia, and standard anaesthesia protocol was followed. The primary outcome measured was the oropharyngeal leak pressure (OLP). The rate of successful insertion, insertion time, fibreoptic view of larynx and airway complications for each device were also assessed. There were no statistically significant differences between SLMA and PLMA size 1.5 in oropharyngeal leak pressure [19.1 (± 5.5) cmH2O vs. 19.8 (± 4.5) cmH2O, p = 0.68]. Secondary outcomes including time to insertion [20.8 (± 8.3) vs. 22.1 (± 8.3) s, p = 0.57], first attempt success rate for device insertion, fibreoptic view of larynx, and airway complications were also comparable between the two devices. We found that all the patients who had a failed device insertion (either PLMA or SLMA) were of a smaller size (5–6.2 kg). The oropharyngeal leak pressure of the SLMA 1.5 was comparable with the PLMA 1.5, and both devices were able to maintain an airway effectively without significant clinical complications in anaesthetized children from an Asian population

Evaluation of the quality of acute pain management in a pediatric surgical setting: Validation of a parent proxy modified version of the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire

Background: Effective pain management involves a cycle of continual pain assessment, good pain control strategies, and assessment of a standard quality improvement measures. A validated questionnaire that focuses on the quality of postoperative pain management in pediatric surgical patients and parental satisfaction on pain treatment is lacking. We, therefore, modified the revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire to evaluate the quality of postoperative pain management in a pediatric surgical setting. The primary aim of this study was to validate the modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire. Methods: Parents whose children aged below 12 years and were scheduled for elective surgery in a teaching hospital, were approached to participate in this survey. The reliability of the modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha test, while the construct validity was assessed with a principal component analysis using a varimax rotation. The parental satisfaction with pain treatment received was measured. Results: A total of 108 parents completed the questionnaire. The internal consistency of the questionnaire shows a Cronbach's alpha of 0.798. Principal component analysis revealed a four-factor structure of the 12 items which explained 69.7% of the total variance. The factors are “Interference of sleep and activity,” “Pain severity and drowsiness,” “Perception of care,” and “Adverse effects,” respectively. Our study showed that this questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure for “Interference of sleep and activity” and “Pain severity and drowsiness” factors, but not for “Perception of care” and “Adverse effects.” The results for “Perception of care” and “Adverse effects,” therefore, should be reported as individual items instead of total score. The parental satisfaction with pain treatment given was good (median 8.0; IQR 3.0). Conclusion: The modified version of revised American Pain Society Patient Outcome Questionnaire is a feasible and easy instrument to administer. The questionnaire can be used to obtain feedback from parents about the outcomes and experiences of pain management and is helpful in continuous quality evaluation and improvement in the postoperative care in a pediatric setting