Regional anesthesia (RA) is often perceived to be more environmentally sustainable than alternative forms of anesthesia. Nevertheless, the principles of sustainable RA remain ill-defined in the presence of variability of resource utilization within RA practice. Many infection prevention practices are based on low-level evidence, and recommendations vary internationally. We sought to conduct an evidence review and Delphi consensus study to provide guidance on aspects that lack high-quality evidence in RA practice to reconcile responsible resource stewardship and infection prevention in RA. We conducted a three-round modified Delphi process. After distributing an initial free-text questionnaire to all collaborators, we created structured questions, followed by two rounds of anonymized voting. We defined strong consensus as ≥ 75

BackgroundTo provide recommendations on risk mitigation, diagnosis and treatment of infectious complications associated with the practice of regional anesthesia, acute and chronic pain management.MethodsFollowing board approval, in 2020 the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA Pain Medicine) commissioned evidence-based guidelines for best practices for infection control. More than 80 research questions were developed and literature searches undertaken by assigned working groups comprising four to five members. Modified US Preventive Services Task Force criteria were used to determine levels of evidence and certainty. Using a modified Delphi method, >50% agreement was needed to accept a recommendation for author review, and >75% agreement for a recommendation to be accepted. The ASRA Pain Medicine Board of Directors reviewed and approved the final guidelines.ResultsAfter documenting the incidence and infectious complications associated with regional anesthesia and interventional pain procedures including implanted devices, we made recommendations regarding the role of the anesthesiologist and pain physician in infection control, preoperative patient risk factors and management, sterile technique, equipment use and maintenance, healthcare setting (office, hospital, operating room), surgical technique, postoperative risk reduction, and infection symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment. Consensus recommendations were based on risks associated with different settings and procedures, and keeping in mind each patient’s unique characteristics.ConclusionsThe recommendations are intended to be multidisciplinary guidelines for clinical care and clinical decision-making in the regional anesthesia and chronic interventional pain practice. The issues addressed are constantly evolving, therefore, consistent updating will be required.

ObjectivesUltrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA) relies on acquiring and interpreting an appropriate view of sonoanatomy. Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to aid this by applying a color overlay to key sonoanatomical structures.The primary aim was to determine whether an AI-generated color overlay was associated with a difference in participants’ ability to identify an appropriate block view over a 2-month period after a standardized teaching session (as judged by a blinded assessor). Secondary outcomes included the ability to identify an appropriate block view (unblinded assessor), global rating score and participant confidence scores.DesignRandomized, partially blinded, prospective cross-over study.SettingSimulation scans on healthy volunteers. Initial assessments on 29 November 2022 and 30 November 2022, with follow-up on 25 January 2023 – 27 January 2023.Participants57 junior anesthetists undertook initial assessments and 51 (89.47%) returned at 2 months.InterventionParticipants performed ultrasound scans for six peripheral nerve blocks, with AI assistance randomized to half of the blocks. Cross-over assignment was employed for 2 months.Main outcome measuresBlinded experts assessed whether the block view acquired was acceptable (yes/no). Unblinded experts also assessed this parameter and provided a global performance rating (0–100). Participants reported scan confidence (0–100).ResultsAI assistance was associated with a higher rate of appropriate block view acquisition in both blinded and unblinded assessments (p=0.02 and <0.01, respectively). Participant confidence and expert rating scores were superior throughout (all p<0.01).ConclusionsAssistive AI was associated with superior ultrasound scanning performance 2 months after formal teaching. It may aid application of sonoanatomical knowledge and skills gained in teaching, to support delivery of UGRA beyond the immediate post-teaching period.Trial registration numberNCT05583032.

To coincide with the annual scientific meeting of Regional Anaesthesia UK in London 2024, where there is a joint scientific session with the British Journal of Anaesthesia, a special regional anaesthesia edition of the journal has been produced. This editorial offers some highlights from the manuscripts contained within the special edition.

Background: ScanNavTM Anatomy Peripheral Nerve Block (ScanNavTM) is an artificial intelligence (AI)-based device that produces a colour overlay on real-time B-mode ultrasound to highlight key anatomical structures for regional anaesthesia. This study compares consistency of identification of sono-anatomical structures between expert ultrasonographers and ScanNavTM. Methods: Nineteen experts in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA) annotated 100 structures in 30 ultrasound videos across six anatomical regions. These annotations were compared with each other to produce a quantitative assessment of the level of agreement amongst human experts. The AI colour overlay was then compared with all expert annotations. Differences in human-human and human-AI agreement are presented for each structure class (artery, muscle, nerve, fascia/serosal plane) and structure. Clinical context is provided through subjective assessment data from UGRA experts. Results: For human-human and human-AI annotations, agreement was highest for arteries (mean Dice score 0.88/0.86), then muscles (0.80/0.77), and lowest for nerves (0.48/0.41). Wide discrepancy exists in consistency for different structures, both with human-human and human-AI comparisons; highest for sartorius muscle (0.91/0.92) and lowest for the radial nerve (0.21/0.27). Conclusions: Human experts and the AI system both showed the same pattern of agreement in sono-anatomical structure identification. The clinical significance of the differences presented must be explored; however the perception that human expert opinion is uniform must be challenged. Elements of this assessment framework could be used for other devices to allow consistent evaluations that inform clinical training and practice. Anaesthetists should be actively engaged in the development and adoption of new AI technology.

Background As few anaesthetists provide lumbar erector spinae block for disc surgery, there is a need to provide training to enable a randomised controlled trial investigating analgesia after painful spinal surgery (NIHR153170). The primary objective of the study was to develop and measure the construct validity of a checklist for assessment of skills in performing lumbar and thoracic erector spinae fascial plane injection using soft-embalmed Thiel cadavers. Methods Twenty-four UK consultant regional anaesthetists completed two iterations of a Delphi questionnaire. The final checklist consisted of 11 steps conducive to best practice. Thereafter, we validated the checklist by comparing the performance of 12 experts with 12 novices, each performing lumbar and thoracic erector spinae plane injections or fascia iliaca, serrato-pectoral (PEC II) and serratus injections, randomly allocated to the left and right sides of six soft-embalmed Thiel cadavers. Six expert, trained raters blinded to operator and site of block examined 120 videos each. Results The mean (95% confidence interval) internal consistency of the 11-item checklist for erector spinae plane injection was 0.72 (0.63–0.79) and interclass correlation was 0.88 (0.82–0.93). The checklist showed construct validity for lumbar and thoracic erector spinae injection, experts vs novices {median (interquartile range [range]) 8.0 (7.0–10.0 [1–11]) vs 7.0 (5.0–9.0 [4–11]), difference 1.5 (1.0–2.5), P<0.001}. Global rating scales showed construct validity for lumbar and thoracic erector spinae injection, 28.0 (24.0–31.0 [7–35]) vs 21.0 (17.0–24.0 [7–35]), difference 7.5 (6.0–8.5), P<0.001. The most difficult items to perform were identifying the needle tip before advancing and always visualising the needle tip. Instrument handling and flow of procedure were the areas of greatest difficulty on the global rating scale (GRS). Checklists and GRS scores correlated. There was homogeneity of regression slopes controlling for status, type of injection, and rater. Generalisability analysis showed a high reliability using the checklist and GRS for all fascial plane blocks (Rho [ρ2] 0.93–0.96: Phi [ϕ] 0.84–0.87). Conclusions An 11-point checklist developed through a modified Delphi process to provide best practice guidance for fascial plane injection showed construct validity in performing lumbar and thoracic erector spinae fascial plane injection in soft-embalmed Thiel cadavers.

Background Inconsistent nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques hinder scientific communication and engender confusion; this in turn has implications for research, education and clinical implementation of regional anesthesia. Having produced standardized nomenclature for abdominal wall, paraspinal and chest wall regional anesthetic techniques, we aimed to similarly do so for upper and lower limb peripheral nerve blocks. Methods We performed a three-round Delphi international consensus study to generate standardized names and anatomical descriptions of upper and lower limb regional anesthetic techniques. A long list of names and anatomical description of blocks of upper and lower extremities was produced by the members of the steering committee. Subsequently, two rounds of anonymized voting and commenting were followed by a third virtual round table to secure consensus for items that remained outstanding after the first and second rounds. As with previous methodology, strong consensus was defined as >= 75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%-74% agreement. Results A total of 94, 91 and 65 collaborators participated in the first, second and third rounds, respectively. We achieved strong consensus for 38 names and 33 anatomical descriptions, and weak consensus for five anatomical descriptions. We agreed on a template for naming peripheral nerve blocks based on the name of the nerve and the anatomical location of the blockade and identified several areas for future research. Conclusions We achieved consensus on nomenclature and anatomical descriptions of regional anesthetic techniques for upper and lower limb nerve blocks, and recommend using this framework in clinical and academic practice. This should improve research, teaching and learning of regional anesthesia to eventually improve patient care.

IntroductionRegional anaesthesia provides important clinical benefits to patients but is underutilised. A barrier to widespread adoption may be the focus of regional anaesthesia research on novel techniques rather than evaluating and optimising existing approaches. Research priorities in regional anaesthesia identified by anaesthetists have been published, but the views of patients, carers and other healthcare professionals have not been considered previously. Therefore, we launched a multidisciplinary research priority setting partnership that aimed to establish key regional anaesthesia research priorities for the UK.MethodsResearch suggestions from key stakeholders (defined by their interaction with regional anaesthesia) were gathered using an online survey. These suggestions were analysed to identify common themes and then combined to formulate indicative research questions. After an extensive literature review, unanswered and partially answered questions were prioritised via an interim online survey and then ranked as a top 10 list during a final live virtual multidisciplinary prioritisation workshop.ResultsIn total, 210 individuals completed the initial survey and suggested 518 research questions. Fifty-seven indicative questions were formed, of which three were considered fully answered after literature review and one not feasible. The interim online survey received 335 responses, which identified the 24 highest priority questions from the 53 presented. At the final live prioritisation workshop, through a nominal group process, we identified the top 10 regional anaesthesia research priorities. These aligned with three broad thematic areas: pain management (two questions); patient safety (six questions); and recovery from surgery (two questions).DiscussionThis initiative has resulted in a list of research questions prioritised by patients, carers and a multidisciplinary group of healthcare professionals that should be used to inform and support future regional anaesthesia research in the UK.

BackgroundRegional anaesthesia use is growing worldwide, and there is an increasing emphasis on research in regional anaesthesia to improve patient outcomes. However, priorities for future study remain unclear. We therefore conducted an international research prioritisation exercise, setting the agenda for future investigators and funding bodies.MethodsWe invited members of specialist regional anaesthesia societies from six continents to propose research questions that they felt were unanswered. These were consolidated into representative indicative questions, and a literature review was undertaken to determine if any indicative questions were already answered by published work. Unanswered indicative questions entered a three-round modified Delphi process, whereby 29 experts in regional anaesthesia (representing all participating specialist societies) rated each indicative question for inclusion on a final high priority shortlist. If ≥75% of participants rated an indicative question as ‘definitely’ include in any round, it was accepted. Indicative questions rated as ‘definitely’ or ‘probably’ by <50% of participants in any round were excluded. Retained indicative questions were further ranked based on the rating score in the final Delphi round. The final research priorities were ratified by the Delphi expert group.ResultsThere were 1318 responses from 516 people in the initial survey, from which 71 indicative questions were formed, of which 68 entered the modified Delphi process. Eleven ‘highest priority’ research questions were short listed, covering themes of pain management; training and assessment; clinical practice and efficacy; technology and equipment.ConclusionsWe prioritised unanswered research questions in regional anaesthesia. These will inform a coordinated global research strategy for regional anaesthesia and direct investigators to address high-priority areas.

Enhanced recovery after total hip arthroplasty aims to facilitate return to function and early hospital discharge, but the role of novel fascial plane block techniques in such pathways is uncertain. A randomised trial by Kukreja and colleagues describes superior quality of recovery after hip arthroplasty in patients receiving a pericapsular nerve group (PENG) block. We discuss the trial findings in the context of ongoing uncertainty regarding best analgesic practice for this surgical procedure.

Background: Adequate training of anaesthetists in regional anaesthesia is important to ensure optimal patient access to regional anaesthesia. Methods: We undertook a national survey of UK trainee anaesthetists and Royal College of Anaesthetists (RCoA) tutors to assess experiences of training in regional anaesthesia. We performed descriptive statistics for baseline characteristics, and logistic regression of training indices and tutor confidence that their hospital could provide regional anaesthesia training at all three stages of the RCoA 2021 curriculum. Results: A total of 492 trainees (19.2%) and 114 tutors (45.2%) completed the survey. Trainees were less likely to have received training in chest/abdominal wall compared with upper/lower limb blocks {erector spinae vs femoral block (odds ratio [OR] 0.25, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.16–0.39), P<0.001}, or achieved >20 chest/abdominal wall blocks by Stage 3 of training (chest vs lower limb block [OR 0.09, 95% CI 0.05–0.15, P<0.001]. There was a strong association between training received, number of blocks performed (>20 vs 0–5 blocks), and self-reported ability to perform blocks independently, OR 20.9 (95% CI 9.38–53.2). 24/182 (13%) and 10/182 (5.5%) of trainees had performed ≥50 non-obstetric lumbar and thoracic epidurals, respectively, by Stage 3 training. There was a positive association between having a lead clinician for regional anaesthesia, particularly those with paid sessions, and reported confidence to provide regional anaesthesia training at all stages of the curriculum (Stage 3 OR 7.27 [95% CI 2.64–22.0]). Conclusion: Our results confirm the importance of clinical experience and access to training in regional anaesthesia, and support the introduction of departmental regional anaesthesia leads to improve equity and quality in training opportunities.

BACKGROUND:Ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia relies on the visualisation of key landmark, target, and safety structures on ultrasound. However, this can be challenging, particularly for inexperienced practitioners. Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being applied to medical image interpretation, including ultrasound. In this exploratory study, we evaluated ultrasound scanning performance by non-experts in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia, with and without the use of an assistive AI device.METHODS:Twenty-one anaesthetists, all non-experts in ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia, underwent a standardised teaching session in ultrasound scanning for six peripheral nerve blocks. All then performed a scan for each block; half of the scans were performed with AI assistance and half without. Experts assessed acquisition of the correct block view and correct identification of sono-anatomical structures on each view. Participants reported scan confidence, experts provided a global rating score of scan performance, and scans were timed.RESULTS:Experts assessed 126 ultrasound scans. Participants acquired the correct block view in 56/62 (90.3%) scans with the device compared with 47/62 (75.1%) without (P=0.031, two data points lost). Correct identification of sono-anatomical structures on the view was 188/212 (88.8%) with the device compared with 161/208 (77.4%) without (P=0.002). There was no significant overall difference in participant confidence, expert global performance score, or scan time.CONCLUSIONS:Use of an assistive AI device was associated with improved ultrasound image acquisition and interpretation. Such technology holds potential to augment performance of ultrasound scanning for regional anaesthesia by non-experts, potentially expanding patient access to these techniques.CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION:NCT05156099.

Introduction Needle insertion and visualisation skills needed for ultrasound (US)-guided procedures can be challenging to acquire. The novel NeedleTrainer device superimposes a digital holographic needle on a real-time US image display without puncturing a surface. The aim of this randomised control study was to compare the success of trainees performing a simulated central venous catheter insertion on a phantom either with or without prior NeedleTrainer device practice. Methods West of Scotland junior trainees who had not performed insertion of a central venous catheter were randomised into two groups (n=20). Participants undertook standardized online training through a pre-recorded video and training on how to handle a US probe. Group 1 had 10 minutes of supervised training with the NeedleTrainer device. Group 2 were a control group. Participants were assessed on needle insertion to a pre-defined target vein in a phantom. The outcome measures were the time taken for needle placement (secs), number of needle passes (n), operator confidence (0-10), assessor confidence (0-10), and NASA task load index score. Results The mean mental demand score in the control group was 7.65 (SD 3.5) compared to 12.8 (SD 2.2, p=0.005) in the NeedleTrainer group. There was no statistical difference between the groups in any of the other outcome measures. Discussion This was a small pilot study, and small participant numbers may have impacted the statistical significance. There is natural variation of skill within participants that could not have been controlled for. The difference in pressure needed using the NeedleTrainer compared to a real needle may impact the outcome measures.

Introduction Needle tip visualisation is a key skill required for the safe practice of ultrasound-guided regional anaesthesia (UGRA). This exploratory study assesses the utility of a novel augmented reality device, NeedleTrainer™, to differentiate between anaesthetists with varying levels of UGRA experience in a simulated environment. Methods Four groups of five participants were recruited (n = 20): novice, early career, experienced anaesthetists, and UGRA experts. Each participant performed three simulated UGRA blocks using NeedleTrainer™ on healthy volunteers (n = 60). The primary aim was to determine whether there was a difference in needle tip visibility, as calculated by the device, between groups of anaesthetists with differing levels of UGRA experience. Secondary aims included the assessment of simulated block conduct by an expert assessor and subjective participant self-assessment. Results The percentage of time the simulated needle tip was maintained in view was higher in the UGRA expert group (57.1%) versus the other three groups (novice 41.8%, early career 44.5%, and experienced anaesthetists 43.6%), but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.05). An expert assessor was able to differentiate between participants of different UGRA experience when assessing needle tip visibility (novice 3.3 out of 10, early career 5.1, experienced anaesthetists 5.9, UGRA expert group 8.7; p < 0.01) and final needle tip placement (novice 4.2 out of 10, early career 5.6, experienced anaesthetists 6.8, UGRA expert group 8.9; p < 0.01). Subjective self-assessment by participants did not differentiate UGRA experience when assessing needle tip visibility (p = 0.07) or final needle tip placement (p = 0.07). Discussion An expert assessor was able to differentiate between participants with different levels of UGRA experience in this simulated environment. Objective NeedleTrainer™ and subjective participant assessments did not reach statistical significance. The findings are novel as simulated needling using live human subjects has not been assessed before, and no previous studies have attempted to objectively quantify needle tip visibility during simulated UGRA techniques. Future research should include larger sample sizes to further assess the potential use of such technology.

Background and objectives Documentation is important for quality improvement, education, and research. There is currently a lack of recommendations regarding key aspects of documentation in regional anesthesia. The aim of this study was to establish recommendations for documentation in regional anesthesia. Methods Following the formation of the executive committee and a directed literature review, a long list of potential documentation components was created. A modified Delphi process was then employed to achieve consensus amongst a group of international experts in regional anesthesia. This consisted of 2 rounds of anonymous electronic voting and a final virtual round table discussion with live polling on items not yet excluded or accepted from previous rounds. Progression or exclusion of potential components through the rounds was based on the achievement of strong consensus. Strong consensus was defined as ≥75% agreement and weak consensus as 50%–74% agreement. Results Seventy-seven collaborators participated in both rounds 1 and 2, while 50 collaborators took part in round 3. In total, experts voted on 83 items and achieved a strong consensus on 51 items, weak consensus on 3 and rejected 29. Conclusion By means of a modified Delphi process, we have established expert consensus on documentation in regional anesthesia.

block was discussed with the patient as a novel option for analgesia.Levobupivacaine 0.5% (20 ml) was placed in the ESP, which resulted in a rapid improvement in pain score and reduced use of morphine patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) pump.At 6 h, her pain score and PCA use increased.An ESP catheter was sited with QDS manual boluses of local anaesthetic.This resulted in improvement in pain and discontinuation of the PCA.The catheter was removed on Day 4. The patient was discharged on Day 6 once adequate anticoagulation had been achieved.Treatment of acute pain in the parturient is challenging with contraindications to NSAIDs post-30 weeks' gestation 4 and risks associated with opioids.We utilised a regional technique with good effect and high patient satisfaction.We are not aware of any other cases, where an ESP block has been used for this indication.

BACKGROUND/IMPORTANCE:There is heterogeneity among the outcomes used in regional anesthesia research.OBJECTIVE:We aimed to produce a core outcome set for regional anesthesia research.METHODS:We conducted a systematic review and Delphi study to develop this core outcome set. A systematic review of the literature from January 2015 to December 2019 was undertaken to generate a long list of potential outcomes to be included in the core outcome set. For each outcome found, the parameters such as the measurement scale, timing and definitions, were compiled. Regional anesthesia experts were then recruited to participate in a three-round electronic modified Delphi process with incremental thresholds to generate a core outcome set. Once the core outcomes were decided, a final Delphi survey and video conference vote was used to reach a consensus on the outcome parameters.RESULTS:Two hundred and six papers were generated following the systematic review, producing a long list of 224 unique outcomes. Twenty-one international regional anesthesia experts participated in the study. Ten core outcomes were selected after three Delphi survey rounds with 13 outcome parameters reaching consensus after a final Delphi survey and video conference.CONCLUSIONS:We present the first core outcome set for regional anesthesia derived by international expert consensus. These are proposed not to limit the outcomes examined in future studies, but rather to serve as a minimum core set. If adopted, this may increase the relevance of outcomes being studied, reduce selective reporting bias and increase the availability and suitability of data for meta-analysis in this area.

Recent recommendations describe a set of core anatomical structures to identify on ultrasound for the performance of basic blocks in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia (UGRA). This project aimed to generate consensus recommendations for core structures to identify during the performance of intermediate and advanced blocks. An initial longlist of structures was refined by an international panel of key opinion leaders in UGRA over a three-round Delphi process. All rounds were conducted virtually and anonymously. Blocks were considered twice in each round: for "orientation scanning" (the dynamic process of acquiring the final view) and for "block view" (which visualizes the block site and is maintained for needle insertion/injection). A "strong recommendation" was made if ≥75% of participants rated any structure as "definitely include" in any round. A "weak recommendation" was made if >50% of participants rated it as "definitely include" or "probably include" for all rounds, but the criterion for strong recommendation was never met. Structures which did not meet either criterion were excluded. Forty-one participants were invited and 40 accepted; 38 completed all three rounds. Participants considered the ultrasound scanning for 19 peripheral nerve blocks across all three rounds. Two hundred and seventy-four structures were reviewed for both orientation scanning and block view; a "strong recommendation" was made for 60 structures on orientation scanning and 44 on the block view. A "weak recommendation" was made for 107 and 62 structures, respectively. These recommendations are intended to help standardize teaching and research in UGRA and support widespread and consistent practice.

Regional anaesthesia (RA) is in the midst of a renaissance. The advent of ultrasound guidance has not only increased efficacy and improved safety, but has also led to a plethora of novel techniques. Fascial plane blocks in particular are appearing in the literature at an almost exponential rate. The ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has highlighted the potential benefits of RA, and the updated RCoA 2021 curriculum for anaesthetists in training recognises RA as an area of increasing focus and attention. Nevertheless, RA remains underutilised, most likely due to a combination of many anaesthetists lacking the technical proficiency, other healthcare professionals having reservations about its use, and a lack of definitive evidence of superiority compared to alternative techniques in some circumstances. Evidence of benefit is accumulating however, and RA is evolving from an area dominated by enthusiasts to an expected component of a modern anaesthetist’s skillset. It is important that we strive to deliver training to match this objective. Whilst the burgeoning interest and enthusiasm for RA is welcome, it is important that the patient alongside the multi-disciplinary team, is not only involved but at the forefront of all decisions surrounding their management. This is true not only for clinical care, but for the research that informs and drives it. The RA-UK regional anaesthesia research network was set up in 2021, and a census of current work has revealed an encouraging breadth and depth of studies amongst the UK RA research community. Large scale multi-centre NIHR funded trials are underway, and a new swathe of studies are exploring the use of augmented reality and artificial intelligence technologies to enhance RA training and performance. A number of recently published international collaborations will help guide teaching, education, and clinical practice, improving the potential for comparative research and advancing our understanding of the clinical applications of RA. Whilst generation of new evidence is vital, it is equally important to ensure that important research findings are translated in to clinical practice. The production of clinical guidelines has long bridged the gap between evidence synthesis and implementation in practice, and the role of local “champions” is recognised as a powerful influence for instituting change. As suggested in Royal College of Anaesthetists’ guidance, there are local leads formany aspects of anaesthetic care. This is not the case for RA, and it may be there is a role for either departmental RA ‘leads’, or a national link network to coordinate RA training and implementation locally. What then of future research in regional anaesthesia? As the number of blocks being described continues to rise, there is a growing appreciation that “new” or “more complex” does not always translate to “better”. It is becoming increasingly accepted that we must exercise caution in adopting new blocks without a solid evidence base, particularly where a well-researched, validated, and simpler alternative exists. From a clinical practice viewpoint, the “Plan A” block concept focuses on promoting basic nerve blocks that are most likely to add value to patient care. However, the question of how we define “value”, or in other words, what outcomes are the most relevant and important, remains incompletely understood. We must strive to answer this question this if we are to maximise the reach and impact of RA research.