Search

This chapter provides five examples of structured oral examination questions (SOEs) relating to physics and clinical measurement together with model answers and references for further reading to increase your in-depth knowledge and understanding. Each Part II examination will have one SOE on physics and clinical measurement as part of one of the Basic Science oral examinations. This type of SOE will not be the first question for this particular oral examination, so you will not be given time to prepare your answer. As with all SOEs, you should practice answering questions about your anaesthetic equipment and monitors in preparation for Part II. Diagrams are particularly useful for demonstrating your understanding of the principles of clinical monitoring and types of waveforms encountered during clinical practice.

This chapter provides an overview of the structure of Part I and Part II of the European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care examination (EDAIC). It outlines the paper formats, the topics covered in Paper A and Paper B, the oral exam, and the marking system. The Part I exam comprises two multiple-choice question (MCQ) papers. Each paper has 60 questions and is of two hours duration (or 90 minutes if the examination is taken online). The MCQ format adopted is that of a stem with five responses where each may be either true or false. This format is also known as multiple true-false (MTF). The Part II exam is held in a single day, during which there are four separate 25-minute structured oral examinations (SOE). In each SOE, the candidate is examined by two examiners, thereby meeting eight examiners in all. The SOE embraces the same range of basic science and clinical topics covered in Part I.

This chapter provides five examples of structured oral examination questions (SOEs) on applied pharmacology along with model answers and references to help you increase your knowledge and depth of understanding. In the practice of anaesthesiology and intensive care, a good knowledge of pharmacology is essential and has to be very broad especially with regard to the general principles of pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, and has to be quite detailed with regard to those classes of drugs which are the mainstay of daily anaesthetic practice. Consequently questions about drug bioavailability, interactions, metabolism and elimination mechanisms are to be expected. The commonly used classes of anaesthetic drugs such as inhalational agents, intravenous hypnotic agents, muscle relaxants, analgesics and local anaesthetic agents will always feature to an appreciable degree in the EDAIC Part II examination.

This chapter provides five examples of structured oral examination questions (SOEs) on applied physiology along with model answers and references to help you increase your knowledge and depth of understanding. One of the applied physiology questions, often related to cardiac or respiratory physiology, will be the first question for the first SOE of the Part II examination. You will receive a short introduction to the topic to be examined and pointers as to how the question will develop and be given ten minutes to prepare before you enter the examination hall. The list of questions given in each of the example SOEs here will not all appear in the introduction you receive, but you should make sure you think about the topic, draw any diagrams that you know will be useful to help demonstrate your understanding and anticipate what additional questions might be asked. You will take your preparatory work with you, so make your diagrams large enough for the examiners to see from across the exam table. Following this first question, you will be asked additional questions on applied physiology, which you will not have prepared, covering other areas of physiology of importance to the anaesthetist.

This chapter provides 25 multiple-choice questions about physics, equipment, and clinical measurement along with answers, explanations, and references for further reading to increase your in-depth understanding. It is important that anaesthetists have a good understanding of the physical principles that underlie our anaesthetic practice and the equipment that we use to keep the patient safe. Fluid dynamics, the principles of electrical circuitry, electrical safety, and monitoring temperature and humidity are of prime importance alongside an understanding of the anaesthetic machine and vapourizers. As far as possible, these questions appear as they would on an actual EDAIC Part I paper. However, there are some publisher-defined style differences that should not affect your understanding of the questions presented here. The main differences have been pointed out in a previous chapter but beware differences in spelling conventions and the use of abbreviations.

This chapter sets out the rationale for writing a book on how to pass the European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EDAIC), a brief history of the formation of the exam, and what the reader can expect from the rest of the book. The EDAIC has a long history that goes as far back as the days of the European Academy of Anaesthesiology (EAA), an organization that was established on 5 September 1978 and held its first General Assembly in Paris after two years of preparatory work. This preparatory work began in 1976 after a group of anaesthesiologists met during the World Congress in Mexico City to discuss the consequences of the Medical Directives of the European Economic Community (EEC) that were adopted by the Council of Ministers in June 1975.

This chapter provides 25 practice multiple-choice questions (MCQs) about general anaesthesia and the associated model answers, alongside references for more in-depth understanding. The chapter concentrates on the questions associated with providing general anaesthesia in both elective and emergency settings for patients treated in hospital and as a day case. The questions on the pre-operative assessment are also included in this chapter as well as the questions covering several types of critical incidents occurring during general anaesthesia. The latter questions are mainly based on the published guidelines (provided in the references) and require good understanding and detailed reading in order to answer them well.

Background The European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EDAIC) has become a standard of quality among Spanish anaesthesiologists. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to assess the results of Spanish participants for the Part 1 and Part 2 exams over a recent five years period from 2012 to 2016 and 2013 to 2017, respectively. Material and methods After obtaining the authorization from the European Society of Anaesthesiology, the results of both parts of the EDAIC exams were anonymously analysed for five years. We analysed the number of registrations, the pass rates, the cause for failure and the mean scores for basic sciences (paper A of part 1 exam and the two first vivas of part 2 exam) and clinical anaesthesia and intensive care (paper B of part 1 exam and the two last vivas of part 2 exam). Quantitative variables were analysed using the one-way analysis of variance, and qualitative variables using the chi-square test for trends. The level of statistical significance was set at p Results For the written part 1 exam, 1189 of a total of 10,954 candidates (10.85%) were registered in Spanish centres, reflecting the global growth of the exam (p = 0.29). The pass rate was 62.1%, with no significant differences from other countries (p = 0.38). Basic sciences were involved in 84.1% of failing candidates. Mean scores were 71.74 ± 5.98% for basic science (paper A) and 74.48 ± 4.29% for clinical anaesthesiology (paper B). Regarding the part 2 exam, 72.4% of the candidates who had passed the part 1 exam registered for the oral part 2, with a pass rate of 62.7% versus 62.2% in the rest of the world (p = 0.91). Failing in the basic sciences sections of the part 2 resulted in 93.8% of candidates failing the part 2 exam. Bad fails were registered in 56 (31.5%) of failing candidates, of which 71.3% occurred in the basic sciences vivas. Isolated bad fails only occurred in 7 (3.9%) cases. Conclusions The evolution of the EDAIC in Spain has been very similar to evolution of the EDAIC in the rest of the world. Further efforts to improve knowledge in basic sciences and better preparation in the technique of oral examination should improve the pass rate of the EDAIC examinations from an ever-increasing cohort of candidates.

The EDAIC is a diploma of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC). which is obtained after passing two a written MCQ-based (Part1) and a structured oral (part2) examinationIn 2011, a formative On-Line Assessment (OLA) was introduced to help candidates to prepare for EDAIC Part1 examination (EDAIC-I). This retrospective observational study evaluated the results of the OLA and its impact on the EDAIC-1 between 2013 and 2019.After obtaining the authorisation from the ESAIC Examinations Committee, all the results of candidates registered to OLA and/or EDAIC-I between 2013 and 2019 were included. The total number of registrations and the results were analysed and compared for both.Over 17,000 candidates (17,401) sat any of the written exams of the EDAIC. The overall pass-rate for the EDAIC-1 was 68.95%. The OLA score increased significantly with the number of attempts for Paper A (Basic Science) (p=0.006). Overall success of the EDAIC-I was higher in candidates who took the OLA before (72.9% versus 68.3%; OR: 1.25; 95% CI [1.12; 1.39]; p0.001). Candidates who failed in their first attempt for EDAIC-I were more likely to sit the exam again if they had performed the OLA before (OR: 1.396, 95% CI [1.237; 1.574]; p0.001).The OLA was associated with an improvement of the results in basic science and success rate in the EDAIC-I.

The European Diploma in Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (EDAIC) has become a standard of quality among Spanish anaesthesiologists. The aim of this retrospective observational study was to assess the results of Spanish participants for the Part1 and Part2 exams over a recent five years period from 2012 to 2016 and 2013 to 2017, respectively.After obtaining the authorization from the European Society of Anaesthesiology, the results of both parts of the EDAIC exams were anonymously analysed for five years. We analysed the number of registrations, the pass rates, the cause for failure and the mean scores for basic sciences (paperA of part1 exam and the two first vivas of part2 exam) and clinical anaesthesia and intensive care (paperB of part1 exam and the two last vivas of part2 exam). Quantitative variables were analysed using the one-way analysis of variance, and qualitative variables using the chi-square test for trends. The level of statistical significance was set at P.05.For the written part1 exam, 1,189 of a total of 10,954 candidates (10.85%) were registered in Spanish centres, reflecting the global growth of the exam (P=.29). The pass rate was 62.1%, with no significant differences from other countries (P=.38). Basic sciences were involved in 84.1% of failing candidates. Mean scores were 71.74±5.98% for basic science (paperA) and 74.48±4.29% for clinical anaesthesiology (paperB). Regarding the part2 exam, 72.4% of the candidates who had passed the part1 exam registered for the oral part2, with a pass rate of 62.7% versus 62.2% in the rest of the world (P=.91). Failing in the basic sciences sections of the part2 resulted in 93.8% of candidates failing the part2 exam. Bad fails were registered in 56 (31.5%) of failing candidates, of which 71.3% occurred in the basic sciences vivas. Isolated bad fails only occurred in 7 (3.9%) cases.The evolution of the EDAIC in Spain has been very similar to evolution of the EDAIC in the rest of the world. Further efforts to improve knowledge in basic sciences and better preparation in the technique of oral examination should improve the pass rate of the EDAIC examinations from an ever-increasing cohort of candidates.

BACKGROUND Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an important clinical problem. Prospective studies of the incidence, characteristics and risk factors of CPSP are needed. OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of CPSP. DESIGN A multicentre, prospective, observational trial. SETTING Twenty-one hospitals in 11 European countries. PATIENTS Three thousand one hundred and twenty patients undergoing surgery and enrolled in the European registry PAIN OUT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Pain-related outcome was evaluated on the first postoperative day (D1) using a standardised pain outcome questionnaire. Review at 6 and 12 months via e-mail or telephonic interview used the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique four questions). Primary endpoint was the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP (numeric rating scale, NRS ≥3/10) at 12 months. RESULTS For 1044 and 889 patients, complete data were available at 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP was 11.8% (95% CI 9.7 to 13.9) and of severe pain (NRS ≥6) 2.2% (95% CI 1.2 to 3.3). Signs of neuropathic pain were recorded in 35.4% (95% CI 23.9 to 48.3) and 57.1% (95% CI 30.7 to 83.4) of patients with moderate and severe CPSP, respectively. Functional impairment (BPI) at 6 and 12 months increased with the severity of CPSP (P