Department of Anaesthetics, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2010 Apr;23(2):159-66. doi: 10.1097/ACO.0b013e328335db74.
This review outlines the methodology of a major report into academic strategy recently undertaken by the Royal College of Anaesthetists in the United Kingdom. Analyzing the factors that made the report's conclusions robust and workable provides lessons for other countries or healthcare systems faced with similar problems in academic anesthesia.
The main themes covered by this review include: organization of healthcare and university systems, medical postgraduate training, and funding of research. In the UK, there exists a dual process: clinical service delivery and postgraduate clinical training [which are both the province of the National Health Service (NHS)], and research and undergraduate education (which are both the province of universities). Both NHS and universities are sponsored by the UK government. 'Professors' or 'heads of academic department' in the UK have no automatic responsibility over the activities of the majority of anesthetic consultants in their own hospitals. Anesthesia in the UK has never been a specific unit of assessment in the research granting process, such that anesthetic departments have received little external grant support compared with many other departments such as medicine or cardiology. As a result, anesthetic departments across the UK have either become entrenched as small departments or they have vanished through mergers.
The review's main conclusions are: the creation of a central National Institute for Academic Anaesthesia to coordinate and implement academic strategy and funding; engaging with national pathways for the training of future academics; and suggestions for the future role for anesthetic specialist societies in academic strategy. These initiatives can radically transform the research environment in a positive way.
本文概述了英国皇家麻醉师学院最近进行的一项关于学术战略的重要报告的方法。分析使报告的结论具有稳健性和可行性的因素，为其他面临类似学术麻醉问题的国家或医疗体系提供了经验教训。
本次综述涵盖的主要主题包括：医疗保健和大学系统的组织、医学研究生培训以及研究经费。在英国，存在双重过程：临床服务提供和研究生临床培训[均属于国民保健制度（NHS）的范畴]，以及研究和本科教育[均属于大学的范畴]。NHS 和大学均由英国政府赞助。在英国，“教授”或“学术部门负责人”对其所在医院大多数麻醉顾问的活动没有自动责任。麻醉在英国的研究资助过程中从未成为特定的评估单位，因此与医学或心脏病学等许多其他部门相比，麻醉部门获得的外部资助很少。结果，英国各地的麻醉部门要么固守为小部门，要么通过合并而消失。
综述的主要结论是：创建一个中央国立学术麻醉研究所，以协调和实施学术战略和资金；参与未来学者培训的国家途径；以及对麻醉专科协会在学术战略中的未来作用的建议。这些举措可以从根本上积极改变研究环境。
