Practice Patterns Related to Block Selection, Nerve Localization and Risk Disclosure: A Survey of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify current clinical practice patterns among members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine (ASRA) members that relate to complications of regional anesthesia (RA). METHODS: Invitations were posted to the 3,732 ASRA members, to participate in our survey. Members were asked to report the types and numbers of blocks performed annually, preferred nerve localization techniques, and routine risk disclosure practices prior to common neuraxial (NAB) and peripheral nerve (PNB) block techniques. RESULTS: The number of respondents was 801 (response rate: 21.7%). Approximately half of the respondents perform >100 spinal and epidural blocks but <50 of each listed PNB annually. With the exception of axillary block, nerve stimulation is the overwhelmingly preferred nerve localization technique for PNB. Five hundred twenty-nine respondents (66.2%) disclose of RA primarily to allow patients to make an informed choice, while 227 (28.4%) disclose for medicolegal reasons. For NAB, the most commonly disclosed risks are headache and local pain/discomfort. Neurological complications following NAB such as permanent neuropathy and paralysis are inconsistently disclosed. For PNB, the most commonly disclosed risks are local pain/discomfort and transient neuropathy. The least commonly disclosed risks for both NAB and PNB include seizures, respiratory failure, cardiac arrest, and death. With the exception of headache following spinal anesthesia (1:100) and Horner's syndrome following interscalene block (1:10), there is little consensus regarding the perceived incidence of complications. CONCLUSIONS: Based on a 22% response rate, our survey suggests that the risks of RA most commonly disclosed to patients by ASRA members are benign while severe complications of RA are far less commonly disclosed. There is little agreement among ASRA members regarding their perceived incidence of complications following RA.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".