Opportunities for developing expertise are linked to the independent development of personal routines. Evidence-based approaches to professional practice may obscure the role played by the interpretation of knowledge. We suggest that the restriction of apprenticeship-style training threatens the acquisition of anaesthetic expertise as defined in this paper.
Patient handovers in the recovery room are largely informal, but nevertheless show many inherent tensions, both professional and organizational. Although formalized handover procedures are often advocated for the promotion of safety, we suggest that they are likely to work best when the informal elements, and the cultural factors underlying them, are acknowledged.
In this article, the authors discuss an ethical dilemma faced by the first author during the fieldwork of an ethnographic study of expertise in anesthesia. The example, written from the perspective of the first author, addresses a number of ethical issues commonly faced, namely, the researcher-researched relationship, anonymity and confidentiality, privacy, and exploitation. She deliberates on the influences that guided her decision and in doing so highlights some of the elements that combine to shape the data. The authors argue that this process of shaping the data is a symbiotic one in which the researcher and the community being studied construct the data together.
Despite clear official definitions of criticality in anaesthesia, there is ambiguity in how these are applied in practice. Many educationally useful events fall outside critical incident reporting schemes. Professional expertise in anaesthesia brings its own implicit safety culture but the reluctance to adopt a more explicit 'systems approach' to adverse events may impede further gains in patient safety in anaesthesia.
The distribution of work, knowledge and responsibilities in the delivery of anaesthesia has attained particular significance recently as attempts to meet the demands of the European Working Times Directive intensify existing pressures to reorganise anaesthetic services. Using Lave and Wenger's (1991) notions of 'legitimate peripheral participation' in 'communities of practice ' (and Wenger 1998) to analyse ethnographic data of anaesthetic practice we illustrate how work and knowledge are currently configured, and when knowledge may legitimately be taken as the basis for action. The ability to initiate action, to prescribe healthcare interventions, we suggest, is a critical element in the organisation of anaesthetic practices and therefore central to any attempts to reshape the delivery of anaesthetic services.
Keywords: anaesthesia, boundaries, communities of practice, ethnographyThe 'crisis' in anaesthesia Pilnick and Hindmarsh (1999) argue that anaesthetic practice is accomplished by anaesthetic teams in collaboration with the patient and emphasise the necessity to understand how anaesthetic work is created in interactions. This interaction becomes increasingly salient when service reconfiguration and redistribution of work within the anaesthetic team is being considered.In the UK medically-qualified anaesthetists currently provide general and regional anaesthesia for operative procedures, they practice in high dependency and intensive care, provide obstetric epidural services, and acute and chronic pain management services. The 'New Deal for Junior Doctors' restricted the amount of time junior doctors spend training and working in
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.