Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews for application to an anesthesiology training program: a pilot study.

ObjectiveThis study compared admission rates to a United States anesthesiology residency program for applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews during the admissions process. We also explored factors driving applicants to select each interview type.MethodsThe 211 applicants invited to interview for admission to our anesthesiology residency program during the 2014-2015 application cycle were participants in this pilot observational study. Of these, 141 applicants selected face-to-face interviews, 53 applicants selected web-based interviews, and 17 applicants declined to interview. Data regarding applicants' reasons for selecting a particular interview type were gathered using an anonymous online survey after interview completion. Residency program admission rates and survey answers were compared between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews.ResultsOne hundred twenty-seven (75.1%) applicants completed face-to-face and 42 (24.9%) completed web-based interviews. The admission rate to our residency program was not significantly different between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews. One hundred eleven applicants completed post-interview surveys. The most common reasons for selecting web-based interviews were conflict of interview dates between programs, travel concerns, or financial limitations. Applicants selected face-to-face interviews due to a desire to interact with current residents, or geographic proximity to the residency program.ConclusionsThese results suggest that completion of web-based interviews is a viable alternative to completion of face-to-face interviews, and that choice of interview type does not affect the rate of applicant admission to the residency program. Web-based interviews may be of particular interest to applicants applying to a large number of programs, or with financial limitations

Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews for application to an anesthesiology training program: a pilot study

Abstract Objectives: This study compared admission rates to a United States anesthesiology residency program for applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews during the admissions process. We also explored factors driving applicants to select each interview type. Methods: The 211 applicants invited to interview for admission to our anesthesiology residency program during the 2014-2015 application cycle were participants in this pilot observational study. Of these, 141 applicants selected face-to-face interviews, 53 applicants selected web-based interviews, and 17 applicants declined to interview. Data regarding applicants' reasons for selecting a particular interview type were gathered using an anonymous online survey after interview completion. Residency program admission rates and survey answers were compared between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews. Results: One hundred twenty-seven (75.1%) applicants completed face-to-face and 42 (24.9%) completed webbased interviews. The admission rate to our residency program was not significantly different between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews. One hundred eleven applicants completed post-interview surveys. The most common reasons for selecting web-based interviews were conflict of interview dates between programs, travel concerns, or financial limitations. Applicants selected face-to-face interviews due to a desire to interact with current residents, or geographic proximity to the residency program. Conclusions: These results suggest that completion of webbased interviews is a viable alternative to completion of face-to-face interviews, and that choice of interview type does not affect the rate of applicant admission to the residency program. Web-based interviews may be of particular interest to applicants applying to a large number of programs, or with financial limitations

Anesthesiologists as perioperative hospitalists and outcomes in patients undergoing major urologic surgery: a historical prospective, comparative effectiveness study

Abstract Background Perioperative care has been identified as an area of wide variability in quality, with conflicting models, and involving multiple specialties. In 2014, the Loma Linda University Departments of Anesthesiology and Urology implemented a perioperative hospitalist service (PHS), consisting of anesthesiology-trained physicians, to co-manage patients for the entirety of their perioperative period. We hypothesized that implementation of this PHS model would result in an improvement in patient recovery. Methods As a quality improvement (QI) initiative, the PHS service was formed of selected anesthesiologists who received training on the core competencies for hospitalist medicine. The service was implemented following a co-management agreement to medically manage patients undergoing major urologic procedures (prostatectomy, cystectomy, and nephrectomy). Impact was assessed by comparisons to data from the year prior to PHS service implementation. Data was compared with and without propensity matching. Primary outcome marker was a reduction in length of stay. Secondary outcome markers included complication rate, return of bowel function, number of consultations, reduction in total direct patient costs, and bed days saved. Results Significant reductions in length of stay (p <  0.05) were demonstrated for all surgical procedures with propensity matching and were demonstrated for cystectomy and nephrectomy cases without. Significant reductions in complication rates and ileus were also observed for all surgical procedures post-PHS implementation. Additionally, reductions in total direct patient costs and frequency of consultations were also observed. Conclusions Anesthesiologists can safely function as perioperative hospitalists, providing appropriate medical management, and significantly improving both patient recovery and throughput

Comparison of web-based and face-to-face interviews for application to an anesthesiology training program: a pilot study.

ObjectiveThis study compared admission rates to a United States anesthesiology residency program for applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews during the admissions process. We also explored factors driving applicants to select each interview type.MethodsThe 211 applicants invited to interview for admission to our anesthesiology residency program during the 2014-2015 application cycle were participants in this pilot observational study. Of these, 141 applicants selected face-to-face interviews, 53 applicants selected web-based interviews, and 17 applicants declined to interview. Data regarding applicants' reasons for selecting a particular interview type were gathered using an anonymous online survey after interview completion. Residency program admission rates and survey answers were compared between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews.ResultsOne hundred twenty-seven (75.1%) applicants completed face-to-face and 42 (24.9%) completed web-based interviews. The admission rate to our residency program was not significantly different between applicants completing face-to-face versus web-based interviews. One hundred eleven applicants completed post-interview surveys. The most common reasons for selecting web-based interviews were conflict of interview dates between programs, travel concerns, or financial limitations. Applicants selected face-to-face interviews due to a desire to interact with current residents, or geographic proximity to the residency program.ConclusionsThese results suggest that completion of web-based interviews is a viable alternative to completion of face-to-face interviews, and that choice of interview type does not affect the rate of applicant admission to the residency program. Web-based interviews may be of particular interest to applicants applying to a large number of programs, or with financial limitations

What’s New in Traumatic Brain Injury: Update on Tracking, Monitoring and Treatment

Traumatic brain injury (TBI), defined as an alteration in brain functions caused by an external force, is responsible for high morbidity and mortality around the world. It is important to identify and treat TBI victims as early as possible. Tracking and monitoring TBI with neuroimaging technologies, including functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), positron emission tomography (PET), and high definition fiber tracking (HDFT) show increasing sensitivity and specificity. Classical electrophysiological monitoring, together with newly established brain-on-chip, cerebral microdialysis techniques, both benefit TBI. First generation molecular biomarkers, based on genomic and proteomic changes following TBI, have proven effective and economical. It is conceivable that TBI-specific biomarkers will be developed with the combination of systems biology and bioinformation strategies. Advances in treatment of TBI include stem cell-based and nanotechnology-based therapy, physical and pharmaceutical interventions and also new use in TBI for approved drugs which all present favorable promise in preventing and reversing TBI

Isoflurane posttreatment reduces brain injury after an intracerebral hemorrhagic stroke in mice

BACKGROUND: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a devastating stroke subtype affecting 120,000 Americans annually. Of those affected, 40%to 50% will die within the first 30 days, whereas the survivors are left with a lifetime of neurobehavioral disabilities. Recently, it has been shown that volatile anesthetics such as isoflurane can reduce brain injury after an ischemic stroke. As a result, in this study, we investigated the effects of isoflurane as a posttreatment therapeutic modality in ICH-injured mice. Specifically, we investigated whether isoflurane posttreatment can preserve the structural integrity of the brain by reducing apoptotic damage and, in turn, improve functional outcome by amelioration of brain edema and neurobehavioral deficits. METHODS: Male CD1 mice (n = 53) were divided into the following groups: sham (n = 14), ICH (n = 14), ICH treated with 1.5% isoflurane posttreatment for 1 hour (n = 15), and ICH treated with 1.5% isoflurane posttreatment for 2 hours (n = 10). The blood injection ICH model was adapted; this involved extracting autologous blood from the mouse tail and injecting it directly into the right basal ganglia. One hour after surgery, treated mice were placed in a glass chamber maintained at 37°C and infused with 1.5% isoflurane for 1 or 2 hours. At 24 hours postinjury, mice were assessed for neurobehavioral deficits using the Modified Garcia Score and then killed and assessed for brain water content. Double immunofluorescent staining was performed using neuronal marker MAP-2 and TUNEL under a fluorescent microscope to assess for apoptosis. RESULTS: Our results indicated that after 1-hour 1.5% isoflurane posttreatment, there was a significant reduction in brain edema, a decrease in apoptotic cell death, and a significant improvement in neurobehavioral deficits. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that isoflurane may be an effective posttreatment therapeutic option for ICH because of its ability to reduce structural damage and subsequently preserve functional integrity

Additional file 1: of Anesthesiologists as perioperative hospitalists and outcomes in patients undergoing major urologic surgery: a historical prospective, comparative effectiveness study

Propensity balance tables PHS study. (DOCX 166 kb

New building family house in Třebíč

The subject of this Bachelor Thesis is a newly constructed family house located in Třebíč. The house was built using Porotherm brick – type blocks and Miako hollow ceiling bricks. The roof is of an gable design. The house has two overground floors – the second floor takes of a livable attic. The land is flat. All construction was done according to valid CSN code