The Maslach Burnout Inventory for healthcare professionals (MBI-HSS) and its abbreviated version (aMBI), are the most common tools to detect burnout in clinicians. A wide range in burnout prevalence is reported in anesthesiology, so this study aimed to ascertain which of these two tools most accurately detected burnout in our anesthesiology residents. The MBI-HSS and aMBI were distributed amongst 86 residents across three hospitals, with a total of 58 residents completing the survey (67.4% response rate; 17 male and 41 female). Maslach-recommended cut-offs for the MBI-HSS and the aMBI with standard cut-offs were used to estimate burnout prevalence, and actual prevalence was established clinically by a thorough review of multiple data sources. Burnout proportions reported by the MBI-HSS and aMBI were found to be significantly different; 22.4% vs. 62.1% respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared to the actual prevalence of burnout in our cohort, the MBI-HSS detected burnout most accurately; area under receiver operating characteristic of 0.99 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.92–1.0). Although there was a good correlation between the MBI-HSS and aMBI subscale scores, the positive predictive value of the aMBI was poor; 33.3% (95% CI:27.5–39.8%), therefore caution and clinical correlation are advised when using the aMBI tool because of the high rates of false-positives.

Awake intubation is indicated in difficult airways if attempts at securing the airway after induction of general anesthesia may lead to harm due to potential difficulties or failure in those attempts. Conventional awake flexible bronchoscopic intubation is performed via the nasal, or less commonly, oral route. Awake oral flexible bronchoscopic intubation (FBI) via a supraglottic airway device (SAD) is a less common technique; we refer to this as 'supraglottic airway guided' FBI (SAGFBI). We describe ten cases with anticipated difficult airways in which awake SAGFBI was performed. After sedation and adequate airway topicalization, an Ambu AuragainTM SAD was inserted. A flexible bronchoscope, preloaded with a tracheal tube, was then inserted through the SAD. Finally, the tracheal tube was railroaded over the bronchoscope, through the SAD and into the trachea. The bronchoscope and the SAD were carefully removed, whilst keeping the tracheal tube in-situ. The technique was successful and well tolerated by all patients, and associated complications were rare. It also offered the advantages of performing an 'awake test insertion' of the SAD, an 'awake look' at the periglottic region, and an 'awake test ventilation.' In certain patients, awake SAGFBI offers advantages over conventional awake FBI or awake videolaryngoscopy. More research is required to evaluate its success and failure rates, and identify associated complications. Its place in difficult airway algorithms may then be further established.

Background and Aims: Burnout is an important occupational hazard, and the scale of the problem within gastroenterology remains poorly understood. The primary objective of this study was to understand the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterology and ascertain if there was a common prevalence within the field. The secondary objective was to identify factors and job‐related stressors that commonly contribute to burnout in gastroenterologists.Methods: Systematic searches were conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and PsycINFO by two reviewers independently for articles published to 1 September 2020. The primary outcome measure was the reported prevalence of burnout in gastroenterologists. The secondary outcome measures were (i) the prevalence of non‐somatic burnout symptoms (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment) and (ii) the frequency of risk factors and stressors reported in studies. Data were presented, and limited meta‐analyses discussed.Results: Data were extracted from 11 studies. 54.5% (6/11) of these studies reported the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterologists; this ranged from 18.3% to 64.4%. Similar to burnout prevalence, burnout symptoms showed geographical variation and were common in gastroenterologists (up to 63.9%). Factors associated with work volume, age, and female gender were the three most frequently reported risk factors for increased levels of stress and burnout in 72.7% (8/11), 54.5% (6/11), and 45.5% (5/11) of studies, respectively. Significant methodological and clinical heterogeneity was observed.Conclusions: Burnout and its non‐somatic symptoms are common in gastroenterologists, but the syndrome is understudied within the field. Further research and good quality data are needed to help address the problem.

Objective The scale of burnout in UK gastroenterology trainees and the feasibility to determine its prevalence using the validated Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) tool are unknown. The primary objective of this region-wide pilot study was to evaluate the response rate to a 31-item questionnaire. The secondary objectives were to estimate the prevalence of burnout in gastroenterology trainees within the East of England deanery (EoE) and identify common stressors that trainees experience. Design This was a cross-sectional study involving gastroenterology trainees from 16 hospitals across the EoE using a 31-item questionnaire. The questionnaire consisted of the 22-item MBI-HSS and nine additional free-text questions. All gastroenterology trainees in the EoE were invited to complete the anonymised survey online. Data were analysed quantitatively and qualitatively. Results The response rate for the survey was acceptable: 44.0% (40/91). 57.5% (23/40) of gastroenterology trainees reported emotional exhaustion. 23.5% (8/34) had depersonalisation and 63.9% (23/36) experienced low professional accomplishment. Burnout prevalence was 35.3% (12/34). 48.4% (15/31) of gastroenterology trainees were aware of professional support services within EoE. Stressors related to service requirements (eg, workload, staffing levels) and professional relationships with colleagues and patients were commonly reported: 65.6% and 25.0%, respectively. Conclusions It is feasible to use a 31-item questionnaire in a national cohort of UK gastroenterology trainees for future burnout studies. Burnout in EoE gastroenterology trainees was high and this may reflect a national prevalence within the specialty. More extensive studies, greater awareness of burnout and improved access to professional support services are required.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has challenged health systems globally and prompted the publication of several guidelines. The experiences of our international colleagues should be utilized to protect patients and healthcare workers. The primary aim of this article is to appraise national guidelines for the perioperative anesthetic management of patients with COVID-19 so that they can be enhanced for the management of any resurgence of the epidemic. PubMed and EMBASE databases were systematically searched for guidelines related to SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2. Additionally, the World Federation Society of Anesthesiologists COVID-19 resource webpage was searched for national guidelines; the search was expanded to include countries with a high incidence of SARS-CoV. The guidelines were evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. Guidelines from Australia, Canada, China, India, Italy, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America were evaluated. All the guidelines focused predominantly on intubation and infection control. The scope and purpose of guidelines from China were the most comprehensive. The UK and South Africa provided the best clarity. Editorial independence, the rigor of development, and applicability scored poorly. Heterogeneity and gaps pertaining to preoperative screening, anesthesia technique, subspecialty anesthesia, and the lack of auditing of guidelines were identified. Evidence supporting the recommendations was weak. Early guidelines for the anesthetic management of COVID-19 patients lacked quality and a robust reporting framework. As new evidence emerges, national guidelines should be updated to enhance rigor, clarity, and applicability.