Howard C R, Howard F M, Garfunkel L C, de Blieck E A, Weitzman M
Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, New York 14621, USA.
Pediatrics. 1998 Mar;101(3 Pt 1):423-8. doi: 10.1542/peds.101.3.423.
We conducted a national survey of pediatric, family practice, and obstetrics and gynecology residency program directors to determine the curriculum content and predominant practices in US training programs with regard to neonatal circumcision and anesthesia/analgesia for the procedure.
Residency directors of accredited programs were surveyed in two mailings of a forced response and short answer survey (response rate: 680/914, 74%; pediatrics 83%; family practice 72%; obstetrics 71%).
Pediatric residents were less likely than family practice [odds ratio (OR), 0.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.02-0.08] or obstetrical (OR, 0.14; 95% CI, 0.08-0.23) residents to be taught circumcision. Training and local custom were rated as important determinants of medical responsibility for neonatal circumcision. Pediatric residents training in programs in which community pediatricians perform circumcisions were more likely to learn circumcision (OR, 39.0; 95% CI, 14.3-110.6) as were obstetric residents (OR, 79.0; 95% CI, 22.4-306.4) training in programs in which community obstetricians perform circumcision. In programs that teach circumcision, pediatric (84%; OR, 3.4; 95% CI, 1.7-7.1) and family practice (80%; OR, 2.7; 95% CI, 1.7-4.2) programs were more likely than obstetric programs (60%) to teach analgesia/anesthesia techniques to relieve procedural pain. Overall, 26% of programs that taught circumcision failed to provide instruction in anesthesia/analgesia for the procedure. Significant regional variations in training in circumcision and analgesia/anesthesia techniques were noted within and across medical specialties.
Residency training standards are not consistent for pediatric, family practice, and obstetrical residents with regard to neonatal circumcision or instruction in analgesia/anesthesia for the procedure. Training with regard to pain relief is clearly inadequate for what remains a common surgical procedure in the United States. Given the overwhelming evidence that neonatal circumcision is painful and the existence of safe and effective anesthesia/analgesia methods, residency training in neonatal circumcision should include instruction in pain relief techniques.
我们对儿科、家庭医学以及妇产科住院医师培训项目主任进行了一项全国性调查,以确定美国培训项目中关于新生儿包皮环切术及其麻醉/镇痛的课程内容和主要做法。
通过两次邮寄强制回复和简答题调查问卷的方式,对经认可项目的住院医师培训主任进行调查(回复率:680/914,74%;儿科83%;家庭医学72%;妇产科71%)。
与家庭医学住院医师[比值比(OR),0.04;95%置信区间(CI),0.02 - 0.08]或妇产科住院医师(OR,0.14;95% CI,0.08 - 0.23)相比,儿科住院医师接受包皮环切术教学的可能性较小。培训和当地习俗被认为是新生儿包皮环切术医疗责任的重要决定因素。在社区儿科医生进行包皮环切术的项目中接受培训的儿科住院医师更有可能学习包皮环切术(OR,39.0;95% CI,14.3 - 110.6),在社区妇产科医生进行包皮环切术的项目中接受培训的妇产科住院医师也是如此(OR,79.0;95% CI,22.4 - 306.4)。在教授包皮环切术的项目中,儿科(84%;OR,3.4;95% CI,1.7 - 7.1)和家庭医学(80%;OR,2.7;95% CI,1.7 - 4.2)项目比妇产科项目(60%)更有可能教授缓解手术疼痛的镇痛/麻醉技术。总体而言,26%教授包皮环切术的项目未提供该手术的麻醉/镇痛教学。在各医学专业内部和之间,包皮环切术及镇痛/麻醉技术培训存在显著的地区差异。
在新生儿包皮环切术或该手术的镇痛/麻醉教学方面,儿科、家庭医学和妇产科住院医师的培训标准不一致。对于在美国仍然是常见外科手术的情况,疼痛缓解方面的培训显然不足。鉴于有压倒性证据表明新生儿包皮环切术是疼痛的,且存在安全有效的麻醉/镇痛方法,新生儿包皮环切术的住院医师培训应包括疼痛缓解技术的教学。