Scenario-Related Anxiety, Self-Reported Critical Incidents, and Burnout Among Anesthesia Professionals: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
AI interpretation is pending for this paper.
Open original publication →What the AI sees
Not AI summarized yet.
Research significance
Pending deeper interpretation.
Source abstract
Background/Objectives: Scenario-specific anticipatory anxiety among anesthesia professionals is poorly characterized. We describe scenario ratings, career incidents, and associated factors. Methods: This cross-sectional survey (20 June-6 July 2026) included a self-selected convenience sample of 400 anesthesia professionals in Bursa, Türkiye. Participants rated 12 scenarios and reported incidents, post-event impact, burnout, and institutional preparedness. Multivariable regression examined the preliminary mean index. Results: An internal split-sample stability assessment-not independent validation-showed inadequate confirmatory fit; the 12-item mean was therefore treated as a preliminary descriptive index, not a validated scale. Ratings were highest for pediatric complications (7.01), medication errors (6.45), and malignant hyperthermia (6.15). Difficult airway was selected most often in a separate, non-equivalent incident item (95.8%); selections indicate citation salience, not prevalence. All respondents reported a participant-defined career incident. The invitation denominator was unknown; self-selection may have inflated the observed 100% incident-reporting proportion. Only 7.8% reported past-year simulation training. The exploratory model explained 10.9% of the index variance. Higher values were associated, after adjustment, with female sex (β = 0.55, 95% CI 0.15-0.96), faculty (β = 1.58, 95% CI 0.50-2.66) and specialist roles (β = 1.36, 95% CI 0.82-1.90) relative to technicians, and with a higher study-specific burnout rating (β = 0.20/point, 95% CI 0.09-0.31). Reporting ≥6 vs. <6 incidents was associated with a modestly lower value (β = -0.64, 95% CI -1.20 to -0.09), without a monotonic trend. Conclusions: The findings are hypothesis-generating. Selection, reverse causation, measurement error, untested cross-role measurement invariance, common method covariance, multiplicity, and unexplained variance limit interpretation. Multisite studies using validated measures are required before application.