OBJECTIVE:To describe the development and implementation of a comprehensive in situ simulation-based curriculum for anesthesia residents. DESIGN:This is a prospective study. SETTING:This study was conducted at a university hospital. PARTICIPANTS:This single-center prospective study included all 53 anesthesia residents enrolled in the anesthesia residency program. INTERVENTIONS:Introduction of a routine, high-fidelity, in situ simulation program that incorporates short sessions to train residents in the necessary skill sets and decision-making processes required in the operating room. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS:Our team conducted 182 individual 15-minute simulation sessions over 3 months during regular working hours. All 53 residents in our program actively participated in the simulations. Most residents engaged in at least 3 sessions, with an average participation rate of 3.4 per resident (range, 1-6 sessions). Residents completed an online anonymous survey, with a response rate of 71.7% (38 of 53 residents) over the 3-month period. The survey aimed to assess their overall impression and perceived contribution of this project to their training. CONCLUSIONS:Our proposed teaching method can bridge the gap in resident training and enhance their critical reasoning to manage diverse clinical situations they may not experience during their residency.

Background:This study's primary aim was to determine how training programs use simulation-based medical education (SBME), because SBME is linked to superior clinical performance.Methods:An anonymous 10-question survey was distributed to anesthesiology residency program directors across the United States. The survey aimed to assess where and how SBME takes place, which resources are available, frequency of and barriers to its use, and perceived utility of a dedicated departmental education laboratory.Results:The survey response rate was 30.4% (45/148). SBME typically occurred at shared on-campus laboratories, with residents typically participating in SBME 1 to 4 times per year. Frequently practiced skills included airway management, trauma scenarios, nontechnical skills, and ultrasound techniques (all ≥ 77.8%). Frequently cited logistical barriers to simulation laboratory use included COVID-19 precautions (75.6%), scheduling (57.8%), and lack of trainers (48.9%). Several respondents also acknowledged financial barriers. Most respondents believed a dedicated departmental education laboratory would be a useful or very useful resource (77.8%).Conclusion:SBME is a widely incorporated activity but may be impeded by barriers that our survey helped identify. Barriers can be addressed by departmental education laboratories. We discuss how such laboratories increase capabilities to support structured SBME events and how costs can be offset. Other academic departments may also benefit from establishing such laboratories.