A survey of emergency medicine and orthopaedic physicians’ knowledge, attitude, and practice towards the use of peripheral nerve blocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Peripheral nerve blocks (also known as regional anaesthesia) are currently used by many anaesthesiologists and emergency physicians for perioperative and procedural pain management. METHODS: This is a cross sectional descriptive study conducted to evaluate knowledge, attitudes, and current practice towards use of peripheral nerve blocks for lower extremity injuries at Black Lion Hospital, a tertiary trauma centre in Addis Ababa. RESULTS: A standardised survey was conducted with 64 participants working in emergency medicine [30/64 (46.9%)] and orthopaedics [34/64 (53.1%)]. Twenty-three of 64 (35.9%) respondents had received formal training. Knowledge was acquired from didactic/workshop format for 15/23 (65.2%), followed by peer training 6/23 (39.1%). The majority, 62/64 (96.9%), believed that knowledge of general anatomy and nerve blocks are very important. Thirty-one of 64 (48%) of the respondents did not routinely perform peripheral nerve blocks. A majority, 27/31 (87.1%) stated they lacked the required skills. Ultrasound guidance of the femoral nerve 16/33 (48.5%) was the most commonly performed peripheral nerve block, followed by ankle block using anatomic landmarks 15/33 (45.5%). Almost all (15/16) ultrasound-guided nerve blocks were done by emergency medicine providers, while all anatomic land mark guided blocks were done by orthopaedic teams. A majority of the respondents (93.8%) (n = 60) were optimistic that their practice on peripheral nerve blocks would increase in future. A highly significant association was found between previous training on peripheral nerve blocks and the number of peripheral nerve blocks performed in a month; p value - 0.006. DISCUSSION: This study indicates peripheral nerve blocks are likely underutilised due to lack of training. There was a positive attitude towards peripheral nerve blocks but gaps on knowledge and practice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".