|
My choice of regional anaesthesia technique is influenced more by my training background than by current published evidence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tend to repeatedly perform the same regional anaesthesia techniques because they have worked well for me in the past.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am more likely to adopt a new regional anaesthesia technique after observing respected colleagues use it, even before strong supporting evidence is available.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once I decide on a regional anaesthesia plan, I rarely change it after ultrasound scanning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When a block is partially effective, I prefer to rescue or repeat the block rather than switch to an alternative analgesic strategy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
My personal success rate with a regional anaesthesia technique influences my confidence in that technique more than published complication rates.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I believe that my personal complication rate with regional anaesthesia is lower than that of most of my colleagues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social media, conferences, and workshops influence regional anaesthesia practice faster than peer-reviewed literature.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I feel implicit pressure to offer regional anaesthesia even when its additional clinical benefit for a specific patient is uncertain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I sometimes continue with a planned regional anaesthesia technique despite suboptimal anatomical or clinical conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Failed or suboptimal regional anaesthesia blocks are under-reported and insufficiently discussed within my department.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Clinical experience in regional anaesthesia reduces—but does not eliminate—cognitive bias in clinical decision-making.
|
|
|
|
|
|