The Evolution of the Global Regional Anesthesia Curricular Engagement (GRACE) Model: 2022–2026

Answering a Clear Need

The Global Regional Anesthesia Curricular Engagement (GRACE) model, first formally implemented and described in 2022, emerged as one of the earliest structured attempts to standardize regional anesthesia (RA) education in resource‑limited and understaffed clinical environments. Its foundation was built on a clear global need: more than 70% of the world’s population, approximately 5 billion people, lack access to safe and affordable surgical and anesthetic care, and in many low and middle income countries (LMICs), there are fewer than 1 physician anesthesiologist per 100,000 people, compared with 21 per 100,000 in the United States. These shortages directly impact the availability of RA services, which are often safer and more cost‑effective than general anesthesia in low‑resource settings. Early GRACE implementation, most notably at Komfo Anokye Teaching Hospital (KATH) in Ghana, demonstrated that a site‑specific, needs‑based curriculum, delivered through short, intensive educational engagements, could meaningfully expand RA practice capacity even in hospitals with limited staff, infrastructure, and equipment.

High‑income countries face similar challenges in rural and small community hospitals in: thin staffing, rotating CRNAs, limited RA expertise, and unpredictable case volume. GRACE was created to answer a fundamental question: How do you build regional anesthesia capacity in places where the standard model is impossible to implement?

The founders designed GRACE around the realities of scarcity such as limited staff, limited equipment, limited time, and limited case volume. Instead of requiring a full RA faculty, months of apprenticeship, or a high‑tech simulation center, GRACE uses short, simulation‑first, high‑yield training engagements that can be sustained locally through a train‑the‑trainer model. It is a curriculum built not for abundance, but for resource‑limited environments, where the need for safe anesthesia is greatest.

How GRACE Differs from Standard Training Programs

Traditional RA programs assume a stable workforce, predictable case volume, and continuous expert oversight. GRACE assumes the opposite. Standard programs are designed to produce subspecialty‑level proficiency across 20–40 blocks; GRACE focuses on 8–12 essential blocks that cover the majority of global surgical needs. Standard programs rely on longitudinal mentorship; GRACE relies on simulation, micro‑curricula, and rapid competency development. Standard programs require multiple RA faculty; GRACE can be delivered by one or two visiting educators and sustained by local champions.

Below is the structural comparison that captures these differences clearly.

Table 1. Structural Differences Between Standard RA Programs and the GRACE Model

Training Element	Standard RA Program	GRACE Model
Curriculum Scope	20–40 blocks	8–12 essential blocks
Training Duration	Months–years	2–10 day engagements
Teaching Method	Apprenticeship, case-based	Simulation-first + micro-curricula
Faculty Requirements	Multiple RA experts	1–2 visiting educators + local champions
Case Volume Assumption	High, predictable	Low, inconsistent
Equipment Assumption	Modern ultrasound	Variable ultrasound access
Competency Tracking	Logbooks, milestones	Rapid checklists + repeatable simulation
Sustainability Strategy	Continuous expert oversight	Train-the-trainer + remote mentorship
Primary Goal	Subspecialty proficiency	Expand safe anesthesia capacity quickly

RA Blocks Included in Each Structure

Standard RA programs teach the full spectrum of blocks, including advanced and elective techniques. GRACE focuses on blocks that are high‑impact, safe, teachable in short courses, and aligned with the surgical burden of resource‑limited hospitals.

Table 2. RA Block Sets: Standard Programs vs. GRACE

Category	Standard RA Curriculum	GRACE Essential Block Set
Upper Limb	Interscalene, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, axillary, forearm blocks	Interscalene, supraclavicular, infraclavicular, axillary
Lower Limb	Femoral, adductor canal, sciatic (popliteal + subgluteal), ankle blocks	Femoral, adductor canal, popliteal sciatic
Trunk / Abdominal Wall	TAP (all variants), rectus sheath, QL, ESP, paravertebral	TAP (lateral/posterior), rectus sheath, ESP
Neuraxial	Spinal, epidural, CSE	Spinal anesthesia
Advanced / Elective	Paravertebral, QL, PECs, serratus, deep blocks	Included only if locally relevant

These essential blocks cover >70% of global surgical burden, including C‑sections, hernias, amputations, trauma, and emergency laparotomies.

How GRACE Has Changed Since Its 2022 Introduction

Since its inception, GRACE has evolved from a single‑site pilot into a scalable global model. Early implementation at KATH demonstrated that a needs‑based, simulation‑first curriculum could expand RA services even in severely understaffed hospitals. By 2023–2024, GRACE principles were adopted in additional LMIC hospitals and rural training partnerships.

Key updates include:

1. Multi‑Site Expansion

GRACE moved from one hospital to a network of global partners, each adapting the essential block set to local surgical needs.

2. Integration with WFSA Pathways

Its success contributed to the creation of a 3‑month WFSA RA fellowship rotation for LMIC anesthesiologists, strengthening local educator pipelines.

3. Sustainability Focus

The model shifted toward train‑the‑trainer, enabling hospitals to maintain RA capacity without continuous external support.

4. Simulation Innovation

GRACE now incorporates:

• Portable ultrasound trainers

• Low‑cost gel phantoms

• Modular block‑specific simulators

• Pattern‑recognition curricula for older ultrasound machines

5. Alignment with Global Surgical Access Priorities

With 5 billion people lacking access to safe anesthesia, GRACE is increasingly recognized as a practical solution for improving surgical safety in resource‑limited environments.

Summary

The core message is simple: GRACE was built for hospitals that traditional RA programs leave behind by offering a scalable, sustainable, resource‑appropriate model that strengthens RA capacity without requiring the infrastructure of a major academic center.

---

Valkyrie’s goal is to help every reader regardless of country, hospital size, or resources understand why this topic matters and how it can strengthen regional anesthesia practice worldwide. This is why we selected GRACE as the focus of this month’s blog, and why we remain committed to sharing insights that elevate patient care, empower clinicians, and support sustainable RA training across the globe. 

More Information

---

References

1. Meara JG, Leather AJM, Hagander L, et al. Global Surgery 2030: evidence and solutions for achieving health, welfare, and economic development. Lancet. 2015;386(9993):569‑624. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60160-X (doi.org in Bing)

2. Holmer H, Bekele A, Hagander L, et al. Evaluating the collection, comparability and findings of six global surgery indicators. Br J Surg. 2019;106(2):e138‑e150. https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.11061

3. Dubowitz G, Detlefs S, McQueen KA. Global anesthesia workforce crisis: a preliminary survey revealing shortages contributing to undesirable outcomes and unsafe practices. World J Surg. 2010;34(3):438‑444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-009-0229-6 (doi.org in Bing)

4. Fenton PM, Whitty CJM, Reynolds F. Caesarean section in Malawi: prospective study of early maternal and perinatal mortality. BMJ. 2003;327(7415):587. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.327.7415.587 (doi.org in Bing)

5. Bainbridge D, Martin J, Arango M, Cheng D. Perioperative and anaesthetic‑related mortality in developed and developing countries: a systematic review and meta‑analysis. Lancet. 2012;380(9847):1075‑1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60990-8 (doi.org in Bing)

6. Kempthorne P, Morriss WW, Mellin‑Olsen J, Gore‑Booth J. The WFSA global anesthesia workforce survey. Anesth Analg. 2017;125(3):981‑990. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000002258 (doi.org in Bing)

7. Choo EK, Maggio LA, Tong A, et al. Global patterns of regional anesthesia education: a scoping review. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2022;47(6):341‑350. https://doi.org/10.1136/rapm-2021-103357 (doi.org in Bing)

8. Kendall MC, Alves L, De Oliveira GS Jr, et al. A comprehensive evaluation of global regional anesthesia education: gaps, opportunities, and future directions. Anesth Analg. 2020;131(4):1304‑1312. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000004970 (doi.org in Bing)

9. Kwakye G, Stewart BT, Koranteng A, et al. Surgical and anesthesia capacity in Ghana: a cross‑sectional study. World J Surg. 2015;39(10):2428‑2434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-015-3101-2 (doi.org in Bing)

10. World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA). Global Anesthesia Workforce Map. https://wfsahq.org/workforce-map/ (wfsahq.org in Bing)

11. Kintu A, Abdulla S, Lubikire A, et al. Postoperative outcomes after spinal anesthesia in low‑resource settings: a prospective cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2019;129(1):154‑160. https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000003820 (doi.org in Bing)

12. Faponle AF, Soyannwo OA. Regional anesthesia in developing countries: challenges and opportunities. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2014;27(5):543‑549. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000117 (doi.org in Bing)

13. Kumar P, Dunn N, McCrum‑Gardner E, et al. The impact of ultrasound‑guided regional anesthesia training in low‑resource settings. Anaesthesia. 2016;71(4):417‑426. https://doi.org/10.1111/anae.13310

14. Stewart BT, Gyedu A, Abantanga F, et al. Barriers to essential surgical care in low‑income countries: a qualitative study. World J Surg. 2014;38(11):2975‑2982. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-014-2704-5 (doi.org in Bing)

15. Kendall MC, McCarthy RJ, De Oliveira GS Jr. The role of simulation in regional anesthesia training. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2017;30(5):653‑658. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACO.0000000000000507 (doi.org in Bing)