Dental anaesthesia / report of a Joint Sub-Committee on Dental Anaesthesia.

  • Great Britain. Joint Subcommittee on Dental Anaesthesia.
Date:
1967
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Dental anaesthesia / report of a Joint Sub-Committee on Dental Anaesthesia. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    29/36 (page 27)
    The following conclusions may be drawn by combining information from Tables 1 and 2: (i) Proportion of general anaesthetics administered by medically-qualified practitioners (from Table 1)—45 per cent. (ii) Proportion of medically-administered general anaesthetics administered by practitioners with special training in anaesthesia (from Table 2)—43 per cent. Therefore (iii) Proportion of general anaesthetics administered by medical practitioners with specia! training in anaesthesia—19 per cent. These conclusions are incorporated in the diagram overleaf. Notes: The following criteria were used in compiling Table 2: CONSULTANT ANAESTHETISTS—Those doctors possessing the | F.F.A.R.C.S. diploma; the overwhelm- ing majority hold hospital appoint- ments as consultants although a small minority were still registrars at the time they sent details of their careers and appointments to the Medical Directory. GENERAL PRACTITIONER —Those general practitioners who ANAESTHETISTS possessed the D.A. diploma and/or held appointments as anaesthetists at general hospitals and/or local authority dental clinics and/or were members of the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, and/or any who had undergone some training as anaesthetists in hospital. OTHER DOCTORS —The rest of the doctors involved, i.e. those who gave no evidence of being specially interested in anaesthesia. Six in this category were also qualified as dental surgeons. In all probability a few Senior Hospital Medical Officers were included in the first group and the rest in the second group, some of whom would have been later upgraded to consultant status. Hence in this survey the numbers of ‘consultant anaesthetists’ have probably been under-weighted and those of ‘general practitioner anaesthetists’ over-weighted. 2]