June 6, 2026, 12:45 pm - 2:15 pm

Talk 1: Non-Pharmacological Management of Patient Anxiety

After attending this session, participants will be able to:
  1. To identify sources of patient anxiety that are amenable to reduction.
  2. To suggest some non-pharmacological means of doing so.
  3. To invite discussion on how else this may be achieved.

Talk 2: From Probe to Plan: Real Cases Where Ultrasound Changed Management

After attending this session, participants will be able to:
  1. Integrate ultrasound insights into anesthetic planning to improve patient outcomes during non-cardiac surgical procedures.
  2. Discuss high-impact ultrasound findings in common perioperative crises.
  3. Apply the latest ultrasound technology to improve patient outcome.

Talk 3: From Legacy Principles to Next-Generation Practice: The Evolving Architecture of Crisis Management in Anesthesiology

After attending this session, participants will be able to:
  1. Describe the major milestones and trace the historical evolution of critical event management practices in anesthesiology, linking past innovations to current and emerging approaches.
  2. Recognize the role of a resilient and adaptive mindset in sustaining performance, maintaining cognitive control, and mitigating the effects of stress during emergencies.
  3. Integrate technical and non-technical skills with an effective mindset to construct a cohesive, high-reliability approach to crisis management in anesthesiology.

Talk 4: In-Hospital Airway Emergency Response Pathway: STAT No Airway

After attending this session, participants will be able to:
  1. Describe a multidisciplinary response to failed airway capture in a tertiary care centre.
  2. Discuss clinical outcomes after implementation of the STAT No Airway algorithm.
  3. Identify lessons learned in the implementation of a new pathway for the management of failed airways.

Question Title

* 1. I attended this session:

Question Title

* 2. Overall Session Evaluation

  Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
The objectives were clearly stated 
The stated objectives were met 
I acquired new skills and/or knowledge
I was introduced to new perspectives on my current practice
The content was relevant to my learning needs
This session promoted interaction (i.e., Q&A, polling etc.)

Question Title

* 3. This session encouraged me to consider changes to my practice

Question Title

* 4. Which CanMEDS roles were addressed?

Question Title

* 5. Moderator: Dr. Mullein Thorleifson

  Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
The moderator was organized and managed the  session well

Question Title

* 6. Speaker: Dr. Phil Jones

  Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Communicated clearly and effectively
Was knowledgeable about this topic
Used clear audiovisual aids, which enhanced the presentation
I would attend another presentation by this speaker in the future

Question Title

* 7. Overall, how would you rate the quality and effectiveness of the presentations with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent?

0 5 10
Clear
i We adjusted the number you entered based on the slider’s scale.

Question Title

* 8. Speaker: Dr. Tonia Tauh

  Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Communicated clearly and effectively
Was knowledgeable about this topic
Used clear audiovisual aids, which enhanced the presentation
I would attend another presentation by this speaker in the future

Question Title

* 9. Overall, how would you rate the quality and effectiveness of the presentations with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent?

0 5 10
Clear
i We adjusted the number you entered based on the slider’s scale.

Question Title

* 10. Speaker: Dr. Vandana Vaishnav

  Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Communicated clearly and effectively
Was knowledgeable about this topic
Used clear audiovisual aids, which enhanced the presentation
I would attend another presentation by this speaker in the future

Question Title

* 11. Overall, how would you rate the quality and effectiveness of the presentations with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent?

0 5 10
Clear
i We adjusted the number you entered based on the slider’s scale.

Question Title

* 12. Speaker: Dr. Christine Fedorow

  Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Communicated clearly and effectively
Was knowledgeable about this topic
Used clear audiovisual aids, which enhanced the presentation
I would attend another presentation by this speaker in the future

Question Title

* 13. Overall, how would you rate the quality and effectiveness of the presentations with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent?

0 5 10
Clear
i We adjusted the number you entered based on the slider’s scale.

Question Title

* 14. Speaker: Dr. Shannon Harrington

  Strongly Agree Agree Somewhat Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree
Communicated clearly and effectively
Was knowledgeable about this topic
Used clear audiovisual aids, which enhanced the presentation
I would attend another presentation by this speaker in the future

Question Title

* 15. Overall, how would you rate the quality and effectiveness of the presentations with 1 being poor and 10 being excellent?

0 5 10
Clear
i We adjusted the number you entered based on the slider’s scale.

Question Title

* 16. The session and presenter(s) were balanced and free from commercial bias

Question Title

* 17. Please provide any additional comments or suggestions regarding this session, moderator(s), and speaker(s).

Thank you for completing the evaluation!

T