Quality and outcomes in anaesthesia: lessons from litigation.

Healthcare litigation in the UK continues to grow at an alarming rate, with claims against anaesthetists and critical care physicians increasing each year. This has led to a huge financial burden for the taxpayer and a sharp increase in professional indemnity fees for individual doctors. Although such litigation should provide valuable information to educate practitioners and reduce future similar claims, there appear to be significant barriers preventing important lessons from being learned. Detailed learning opportunities are available only to the healthcare providers being sued or the expert witnesses employed to analyse the claims. Most practitioners have to rely on indemnifiers' case reports, closed-claim analyses, and ad hoc publications for information. In this review, we suggest ways in which important lessons from litigation could be brought to the attention of all clinicians. Currently, most clinicians are unable to determine whether key components of their practice such as consent, clinical decision-making, and documentation are of an acceptable standard for legal scrutiny. By reporting outcomes of Coroners' inquests, clinical and criminal negligence cases, and referrals to the General Medical Council, it would be hoped that more explicit standards of performance could be derived. Ultimately, this may not only improve patient safety, but protect practitioners from unjustifiable claims. Finally, given the critical importance of experts in the above process, we believe that a system for professional registration and regulation should be explored to ensure that they offer accurate, representative, and unbiased opinions and have the appropriate expertise in the subject matter to be analysed.

Safety in anaesthesia: a study of 12,606 reported incidents from the UK National Reporting and Learning System.

The incident reporting database at the National Patient Safety Agency was interrogated on the nature, frequency and severity of incidents related to anaesthesia. Of 12,606 reports over a 2-year period, 2842 (22.5%) resulted in little harm or a moderate degree of harm, and 269 (2.1%) resulted in severe harm or death, with procedure or treatment problems generating the highest risk. One thousand and thirty-five incidents (8%) related to pre-operative assessment, with harm occurring in 275 (26.6%), and 552 (4.4%) related to epidural anaesthesia, with harm reported in 198 (35.9%). Fifty-eight occurrences of anaesthetic awareness were also examined. This preliminary analysis is not authoritative enough to warrant widespread changes of practice, but justifies future collaborative approaches to reduce the potential for harm and improve the submission, collection and analysis of incident reports. Practitioners, departments and professional bodies should consider how the information can be used to promote patient safety and their own defensibility.

Emergency medicine, organ donation and the Human Tissue Act.

The Human Tissue Act 2004, which governs all activity relating to the human body, organs or tissues, is grounded in the principle of fully informed consent in line with societal expectations. The associated intention to deal with the current deficit of transplantable organs has paradoxically been translated into the legitimisation of non-consensual organ preservation manoeuvres after death. The procurement strategy targeted under this new statute is "uncontrolled" non-heart-beating donation, and the clinical arenas would be accident and emergency departments and acute medical wards. Practitioners in these fields need to have an understanding of the process and the associated ethical, logistical and legal hurdles to defensible implementation. In the light of these hurdles, there is an obvious need for more widespread professional and public consultation before adoption of this programme.

Non-heartbeating organ donation: clinical process and fundamental issues.

This case report outlines the clinical process whereby a patient with severe traumatic brain injury became a non-heartbeating organ donor after a withdrawal-of-care decision. This process raises a series of ethical questions regarding decision-making on grounds of futility, the role of the next of kin, informed consent, the accommodation of manoeuvres directed towards organ retrieval at maximal viability, and the timing and determination of death. Although many aspects of the process can be accommodated within fundamental ethical principles and a broad interpretation of the concept of the 'best interests', the variance with established law requires authoritative clarification if a need for transplantable organs is to be responded to without compromising the reputation of practitioners involved in this area of care. Therefore, this recruitment strategy warrants wide public and professional debate to achieve longer-term sustainability and ensure the protection of all parties.

Handover of responsibility for the anaesthetised patient - opinion and practice.

Anaesthesia is a critical and complex process that extends from the pre-operative assessment through to the postoperative management of patients. Handover of responsibility for logistical as opposed to patient-orientated reasons may compromise that process of care. If such handover becomes inevitable with shift-based patterns of working, the implications need to be considered and procedures developed in order to minimise adverse consequences. This survey of national practice reveals little formalisation of procedure and a spectrum of opinion on the relevance of the key considerations. There is, however, a majority view amongst respondents that national guidelines would be of value and that professional defensibility would be aided by standardisation and documentation of any handover.

Brainstem death testing in the UK--time for reappraisal?

BACKGROUND: A diagnosis of brainstem death in the UK is based on clinical assessment rather than technical investigations, but is considered rigorous enough to be legally synonymous with death. METHODS: A questionnaire in five sections concerning clinician details, initiation of support, criteria for testing, conduct of the tests, and the process of organ donation, was sent to all members of the Neuroanaesthesia Society. RESULTS: The survey reveals evidence of failure to apply existing guidelines accurately and a wide variation in practice where the recommendations are not specific. CONCLUSIONS: In an era of scrutiny of medical process, it is timely to consider whether the current guidelines should be revisited. Clarification of the approach to biochemical derangement, and the role of confirmatory tests when the residual effect of sedative agents cannot be excluded, are two areas worthy of debate.

Non-heart beating organ donation: old procurement strategy--new ethical problems.

The imbalance between supply of organs for transplantation and demand for them is widening. Although the current international drive to re-establish procurement via non-heart beating organ donation/donor (NHBOD) is founded therefore on necessity, the process may constitute a desirable outcome for patient and family when progression to brain stem death (BSD) does not occur and conventional organ retrieval from the beating heart donor is thereby prevented. The literature accounts of this practice, however, raise concerns that risk jeopardising professional and public confidence in the broader transplant programme. This article focuses on these clinical, ethical, and legal issues in the context of other approaches aimed at increasing donor numbers. The feasibility of introducing such an initiative will hinge on the ability to reassure patients, families, attendant staff, professional bodies, the wider public, law enforcement agencies, and the media that practitioners are working within explicit guidelines which are both ethically and legally defensible.

Stroke after internal jugular venous cannulation.

OBJECTIVE: To alert clinicians to the stroke risk associated with carotid artery injury secondary to attempted internal jugular venous (IJV) cannulation. METHODS: Case reports and review of the literature. RESULTS: Four patients developed a stroke following carotid artery (CA) injury during attempted IJV cannulation using the landmark technique. In all cases the arterial puncture was detected immediately and firm pressure applied for several minutes. In three cases there was evidence of intimal injury and thrombus formation. Two strokes were delayed by more than 24 h. One patient died. A review of studies describing 4487 IJV line insertion attempts using the landmark technique reveals that 5.9% of attempts are associated with CA injury. CONCLUSION: Cannulation of the IJV using visible and palpable landmarks is associated with a risk of stroke. Arterial injury and stroke should be mentioned when consent is obtained for cannulation. Consideration should be given to a reduction of the arterial injury risk by using ultrasound guidance during line insertion.