Edgcombe Hilary, Murithi Gatwiri, Manyano Mudola, Dunin Sophie, Thurley Neal, Higham Helen, English Mike, Blacklock Claire
Health Systems Collaborative, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Center for Equity in Global Surgery, University of Global Health Equity, Kigali, Rwanda.
Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2025 Mar 6;2025:3598234. doi: 10.1155/anrp/3598234. eCollection 2025.
Anaesthesia providers in all contexts need to be able to communicate with colleagues to meet a variety of clinical and professional needs, including physical help, advice and support as well as learning, supervision and mentorship. Such communication can be regarded as a 'social resource' which underpins anaesthesia providers' practice, but which has not itself been extensively studied. The objective of this scoping review is to provide an overview of the literature related to communication among anaesthesia providers to meet clinical and professional goals, focusing on the modalities, contexts and purposes or outcomes of such communication, as well as which providers are involved. We conducted a scoping review using the JBI methodology to examine the current literature available, searching the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINAHL and Google Scholar. Papers were eligible for inclusion where they primarily addressed the subject of communication between trained anaesthesia providers for any clinical or professional purpose (excluding purely social interactions). Data were charted for the location and cadre of providers represented, means of communication and the situation, purposes and outcomes of communication. 3872 records were identified for screening, and 225 papers were ultimately included. Communication was reported both as a variable influencing a wide range of clinical and nonclinical outcomes and as an outcome in itself which might be modified by other factors. It was also considered in a smaller group of studies as a resource with varying availability to anaesthesia providers. Physician providers were well represented in included documents, but nurse anaesthetists, clinical officers and other nonphysician, nonnurse anaesthetists were far less commonly included. The majority of identified studies on communication between anaesthesia providers originated from and related to high-income countries. Communication between anaesthesia providers affects all aspects of their practice and has implications for both patient outcomes and workforce capacity. More research is necessary to understand how the availability of communication as a resource affects patient care and health worker well-being, particularly in low- and middle-income contexts and among nonphysician anaesthesia providers.
在所有情况下，麻醉医护人员都需要能够与同事沟通，以满足各种临床和专业需求，包括身体上的帮助、建议和支持，以及学习、监督和指导。这种沟通可被视为一种“社会资源”，它支撑着麻醉医护人员的工作，但这种资源本身尚未得到广泛研究。本范围综述的目的是概述与麻醉医护人员之间为实现临床和专业目标而进行的沟通相关的文献，重点关注这种沟通的方式、背景、目的或结果，以及涉及哪些医护人员。我们使用JBI方法进行了一项范围综述，以研究现有的文献，检索了Cochrane系统评价数据库、Cochrane对照试验中央登记库、Medline、Embase、CINAHL和谷歌学术。如果论文主要涉及受过培训的麻醉医护人员之间出于任何临床或专业目的的沟通主题（不包括纯粹的社交互动），则有资格纳入。记录了所代表的医护人员的地点和类别、沟通方式以及沟通的情况、目的和结果。共识别出3872条记录进行筛选，最终纳入225篇论文。沟通既被报告为影响广泛临床和非临床结果的一个变量，也被报告为其本身可能会受到其他因素影响的一个结果。在一小部分研究中，它还被视为一种对麻醉医护人员可用性不同的资源。纳入文献中医生占比较大，但麻醉护士、临床干事以及其他非医生、非护士的麻醉医护人员的占比则少得多。大多数已识别的关于麻醉医护人员之间沟通的研究都来自高收入国家并与之相关。麻醉医护人员之间的沟通会影响他们工作的各个方面，并对患者结局和劳动力能力都有影响。有必要开展更多研究，以了解作为一种资源的沟通的可用性如何影响患者护理和卫生工作者的福祉，尤其是在低收入和中等收入环境以及非医生麻醉医护人员中。
