This simulation-based assessment provided a valid method to distinguish the skills of more experienced anesthesia residents and anesthesiologists from residents in early training. The overall score provided a reliable measure of a participant's ability to recognize and manage simulated acute intraoperative events. Additional studies are needed to determine whether these simulation-based assessments are valid measures of clinical performance.

Although anesthesiologists, on average, achieved a modestly higher overall score, there was marked and similar variability in both groups. This wide range suggests that certification in either discipline may not yield uniform acumen in management of simulated intraoperative emergencies. In both groups, there were practitioners who failed to diagnose and treat simulated emergencies. If this is reflective of clinical practice, it represents a patient safety concern. Simulation-based assessment provides a tool to determine the ability of practitioners to respond appropriately to clinical emergencies. If all practitioners could effectively manage these critical events, the standard of patient care and ultimately patient safety could be improved.

IMRI is becoming increasingly more popular, especially with neurosurgeons, but its use is also expanding to other types of surgeries. Because of the increased use, the anesthesia provider must be aware of the dangers that it imposes to those involved and take necessary safety precautions. This will help assure that no one is harmed during the operation or procedure.

Objective The Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT) for operating rooms (ORs) remotely assesses the progress of surgeries and provides real-time perioperative risk alerts, communicating risk mitigation recommendations to bedside clinicians. We aim to identify and map ACT-OR nonroutine events (NREs)—risk-inducing or risk-mitigating workflow deviations—and ascertain ACT’s impact on clinical workflow and patient safety. Materials and Methods We used ethnographic methods including shadowing ACT and OR clinicians during 83 surgeries, artifact collection, chart reviews for decision alerts sent to the OR, and 10 clinician interviews. We used hybrid thematic analysis informed by a human-factors systems-oriented approach to assess ACT’s role and impact on safety, conducting content analysis to assess NREs. Results Across 83 cases, 469 risk alerts were triggered, and the ACT sent 280 care recommendations to the OR. 135 NREs were observed. Critical factors facilitating ACT’s role in supporting patient safety included providing backup support and offering a fresh-eye perspective on OR decisions. Factors impeding ACT included message timing and ACT and OR clinician cognitive lapses. Suggestions for improvement included tailoring ACT message content (structure, timing, presentation) and incorporating predictive analytics for advanced planning. Discussion ACT served as a safety net with remote surveillance features and as a learning healthcare system with feedback/auditing features. Supporting strategies include adaptive coordination and harnessing clinician/patient support to improve ACT’s sustainability. Study insights inform future intraoperative telemedicine design considerations to mitigate safety risks. Conclusion Incorporating similar remote technology enhancement into routine perioperative care could markedly improve safety and quality for millions of surgical patients.