Disruptive behaviour in the operating room is under-reported: an international survey.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the reporting habits of clinicians who have been exposed to disruptive behaviour in the operating room (OR) and assess their satisfaction with management's responses to this issue. METHODS: Ethics committee approval was obtained. This was a pre-specified sub-study of a larger survey examining disruptive behaviour, which was distributed to OR clinicians in seven countries. Using Likert-style questions, this study ascertained the proportion of disruptive intraoperative behaviour that clinicians reported to management, as well as their degree of satisfaction with management's responses. Binomial logistic regression identified socio-demographic, exposure-related, and behavioural predictors that a clinician would never report disruptive behaviour. RESULTS: Four thousand, seven hundred and seventy-five respondents were part of the sub-study. Disruptive behaviour was under-reported by 96.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 95.9 to 97.0) of respondents, and never reported by 30.9% (95% CI, 29.6 to 32.2) of respondents. Only 21.0% (95% CI, 19.8 to 22.2) of respondents expressed satisfaction with management's responses. Numerous socio-demographic, exposure-related, and behavioural predictors of reporting habits were identified. Socio-demographic groups who had higher odds of never reporting disruptive behaviour included younger clinicians, clinicians without management responsibilities, both anesthesiologists and surgeons (compared with nurses), biological females, and heterosexuals (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Disruptive behaviour was under-reported by nearly all clinicians surveyed, and only one in five were satisfied with management's responses. For healthcare systems to meaningfully address the issue of disruptive behaviour, management must create reporting systems that clinicians will use. They must also respond in ways that clinicians can rely on to affect necessary change.

Intraoperative MRI for neurosurgical and general surgical interventions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The use of intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (IMRI) during surgeries and procedures has expanded in the last decade. Not only is it becoming more commonly used for a variety of adult and pediatric neurosurgical procedures, but also its use has expanded to other types of surgeries. Along with using IMRI for removing tumors of the spinal cord, surgeons are now using it for other types of surgical operations of the kidney and liver. The increased utilization during the intraoperative period warrants the anesthesia provider to assure that patients and staff are unharmed because of increased risk of the powerful magnet. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature is reviewed regarding the expansive use of IMRI in the operating and procedure room. Safety issues and anesthetic implications are also addressed. SUMMARY: IMRI is becoming increasingly more popular, especially with neurosurgeons, but its use is also expanding to other types of surgeries. Because of the increased use, the anesthesia provider must be aware of the dangers that it imposes to those involved and take necessary safety precautions. This will help assure that no one is harmed during the operation or procedure.

Effect of Telemedicine Support for Intraoperative Anaesthesia Care on Postoperative Outcomes: The TECTONICS Randomised Clinical Trial.

Background: Novel applications of telemedicine can improve care quality and patient outcomes. Telemedicine for intraoperative decision support has not been rigorously studied. Methods: This single centre randomised clinical trial ( clinicaltrials.gov NCT03923699 ) of unselected adult surgical patients was conducted between July 1, 2019 and January 31, 2023. Patients received usual care or decision support from a telemedicine service, the Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT). The ACT provided real-time recommendations to intraoperative anaesthesia clinicians based on case reviews, machine-learning forecasting, and physiologic alerts. ORs were randomised 1:1. Co-primary outcomes of 30-day all-cause mortality, respiratory failure, acute kidney injury (AKI), and delirium were analysed as intention-to-treat. Results: The trial completed planned enrolment with 71927 surgeries (35956 ACT; 35971 usual care). After multiple testing correction, there was no significant effect of the ACT vs. usual care on 30-day mortality [641/35956 (1.8%) vs 638/35971 (1.8%), risk difference 0.0% (95% CI -0.2% to 0.3%), p=0.96], respiratory failure [1089/34613 (3.1%) vs 1112/34619 (3.2%), risk difference -0.1% (95% CI -0.4% to 0.3%), p=0.96], AKI [2357/33897 (7%) vs 2391/33795 (7.1%), risk difference -0.1% (-0.6% to 0.4%), p=0.96], or delirium [1283/3928 (32.7%) vs 1279/3989 (32.1%), risk difference 0.6% (-2.0% to 3.2%), p=0.96]. There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes or in sensitivity analyses. Conclusions: In this large RCT of a novel application of telemedicine-based remote monitoring and decision support using real-time alerts and case reviews, we found no significant differences in postoperative outcomes. Large-scale intraoperative telemedicine is feasible, and we suggest future avenues where it may be impactful.

Simulation in Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs: A Report by the AANA Simulation Subcommittee.

Simulation is an integral part of the healthcare educational landscape and a key element in the future of graduate professional education. For the past three decades, simulation-based educational methodology has been gaining popularity in nurse anesthesia educational programs (NAEP). There is currently limited objective evidence documenting modalities used or educational outcomes addressed through simulation in NAEPs. In 2018, the American Association of Nurse Anesthesiology (AANA) established a Simulation Subcommittee of the AANA Education Committee and tasked the group with two primary goals: 1) to gain a better understanding of the current state of simulation education and 2) to review responses with regard to how NAEPs could best incorporate simulation elements within their curriculum to meet requirements while adhering to the guidelines of the Council on Accreditation of Nurse Anesthesia Educational Programs. A survey tool was developed and distributed to all programs to assess the utilization of simulation, available simulation resources, ongoing faculty development efforts, and barriers to use of this educational approach. Survey results indicated that simulation is valued as an effective method within NAEPs for a variety of teaching and learning activities and is utilized to support achievement of both technical and nontechnical learning outcomes for student registered nurse anesthetists.

An Intraoperative Telemedicine Program to Improve Perioperative Quality Measures: The ACTFAST-3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Telemedicine for clinical decision support has been adopted in many health care settings, but its utility in improving intraoperative care has not been assessed. Objective: To pilot the implementation of a real-time intraoperative telemedicine decision support program and evaluate whether it reduces postoperative hypothermia and hyperglycemia as well as other quality of care measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: This single-center pilot randomized clinical trial (Anesthesiology Control Tower-Feedback Alerts to Supplement Treatments [ACTFAST-3]) was conducted from April 3, 2017, to June 30, 2019, at a large academic medical center in the US. A total of 26 254 adult surgical patients were randomized to receive either usual intraoperative care (control group; n = 12 980) or usual care augmented by telemedicine decision support (intervention group; n = 13 274). Data were initially analyzed from April 22 to May 19, 2021, with updates in November 2022 and February 2023. Intervention: Patients received either usual care (medical direction from the anesthesia care team) or intraoperative anesthesia care monitored and augmented by decision support from the Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT), a real-time, live telemedicine intervention. The ACT incorporated remote monitoring of operating rooms by a team of anesthesia clinicians with customized analysis software. The ACT reviewed alerts and electronic health record data to inform recommendations to operating room clinicians. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were avoidance of postoperative hypothermia (defined as the proportion of patients with a final recorded intraoperative core temperature >36 °C) and hyperglycemia (defined as the proportion of patients with diabetes who had a blood glucose level ≤180 mg/dL on arrival to the postanesthesia recovery area). Secondary outcomes included intraoperative hypotension, temperature monitoring, timely antibiotic redosing, intraoperative glucose evaluation and management, neuromuscular blockade documentation, ventilator management, and volatile anesthetic overuse. Results: Among 26 254 participants, 13 393 (51.0%) were female and 20 169 (76.8%) were White, with a median (IQR) age of 60 (47-69) years. There was no treatment effect on avoidance of hyperglycemia (7445 of 8676 patients [85.8%] in the intervention group vs 7559 of 8815 [85.8%] in the control group; rate ratio [RR], 1.00; 95% CI, 0.99-1.01) or hypothermia (7602 of 11 447 patients [66.4%] in the intervention group vs 7783 of 11 672 [66.7.%] in the control group; RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.97-1.02). Intraoperative glucose measurement was more common among patients with diabetes in the intervention group (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.01-1.15), but other secondary outcomes were not significantly different. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial, anesthesia care quality measures did not differ between groups, with high confidence in the findings. These results suggest that the intervention did not affect the targeted care practices. Further streamlining of clinical decision support and workflows may help the intraoperative telemedicine program achieve improvement in targeted clinical measures. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02830126.

Is that snoring something to worry about? Anesthetic implications for obstructive sleep apnea.

Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a chronic disease that is underdiagnosed. It is characterized by repetitive pauses in breathing during sleep that can last for several seconds and can subsequently cause hypoxia-related complications. This apnea can lead to significant medical problems, daytime somnolence, cognitive impairment, decreased work productivity, and an increased risk of motor vehicle crashes. Patients having diagnostic procedures or surgeries in which sedation or anesthesia will be received should be evaluated for OSA to prevent or reduce postoperative complications. The Berlin Questionnaire and the STOP-BANG Questionnaire are useful tools that can be used preoperatively to identify patients at risk for surgical complications. If patients who have OSA or who are at risk for having OSA are identified before surgery, anesthesia providers can take action to prevent perioperative complications. Guidelines published by the American Society of Anesthesiologists provide helpful anesthetic considerations for patients with OSA undergoing surgery in an effort to decrease morbidity and mortality. While research into the effects of surgery and anesthesia in patients affected by OSA is ongoing, compliance with these recommendations, along with vigilance, will help ensure that many patients with OSA can be managed safely during their surgical experiences.

An ethnographic study on the impact of a novel telemedicine-based support system in the operating room.

OBJECTIVE: The Anesthesiology Control Tower (ACT) for operating rooms (ORs) remotely assesses the progress of surgeries and provides real-time perioperative risk alerts, communicating risk mitigation recommendations to bedside clinicians. We aim to identify and map ACT-OR nonroutine events (NREs)-risk-inducing or risk-mitigating workflow deviations-and ascertain ACT's impact on clinical workflow and patient safety. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We used ethnographic methods including shadowing ACT and OR clinicians during 83 surgeries, artifact collection, chart reviews for decision alerts sent to the OR, and 10 clinician interviews. We used hybrid thematic analysis informed by a human-factors systems-oriented approach to assess ACT's role and impact on safety, conducting content analysis to assess NREs. RESULTS: Across 83 cases, 469 risk alerts were triggered, and the ACT sent 280 care recommendations to the OR. 135 NREs were observed. Critical factors facilitating ACT's role in supporting patient safety included providing backup support and offering a fresh-eye perspective on OR decisions. Factors impeding ACT included message timing and ACT and OR clinician cognitive lapses. Suggestions for improvement included tailoring ACT message content (structure, timing, presentation) and incorporating predictive analytics for advanced planning. DISCUSSION: ACT served as a safety net with remote surveillance features and as a learning healthcare system with feedback/auditing features. Supporting strategies include adaptive coordination and harnessing clinician/patient support to improve ACT's sustainability. Study insights inform future intraoperative telemedicine design considerations to mitigate safety risks. CONCLUSION: Incorporating similar remote technology enhancement into routine perioperative care could markedly improve safety and quality for millions of surgical patients.

Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging for neurosurgical procedures: anesthetic implications.

Intraoperative magnetic resonance imaging (IMRI) for tumor resection allows a neurosurgeon to pinpoint the exact location of the tumor before resection and to navigate to the tumor after the incision is made. Although the anesthetic management is not substantially different from that for other neurosurgical procedures, strategies to keep the patient and operating room personnel safe can be challenging. Because of the risk of injury by the strong force of the magnet, safety precautions with respect to anesthetic delivery must be taken. Ferrous objects must be removed and kept outside the operating room. Only MRI-compatible equipment is allowed in the MRI operating room. This includes the anesthesia machine, anesthesia cart, intubating equipment, monitors, stethoscopes, poles for intravenous solutions, and body warmers. Surgical equipment and instruments must be MRI-compatible. Absolute contraindications to entering the MRI suite include pacemakers, cochlear implants, certain cranial aneurysm clips, and metal joints or implants. Goals of anesthesia delivery during IMRI procedures include the following: (1) promoting the safety of patients and staff, (2) preventing MRI-associated accidents, (3) identifying potential equipment-related hazards, (4) recognizing limitations of physiologic monitoring, and (5) acknowledging other potential hazards such as noise.

Performance of certified registered nurse anesthetists and anesthesiologists in a simulation-based skills assessment.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists and certified registered nurse anesthetists (CRNAs) must acquire the skills to recognize and manage a variety of acute intraoperative emergencies. A simulation-based assessment provides a useful and efficient means to evaluate these skills. In this study, we evaluated and compared the performance of board-certified anesthesiologists and CRNAs managing a set of simulated intraoperative emergencies. METHODS: We enrolled 26 CRNAs and 35 board-certified anesthesiologists in a prospective, randomized, single-blinded study. These 61 specialists each managed 8 of 12 randomly selected, scripted, intraoperative simulation exercises. Participants were expected to recognize and initiate appropriate therapy for intraoperative events during a 5-min period. Two primary raters scored 488 simulation exercises (61 participants x 8 encounters). RESULTS: Anesthesiologists achieved a modestly higher mean overall score than CRNAs (66.6% +/- 11.7 [range = 41.7%-86.7%] vs 59.9% +/- 10.2 [range = 38.3%-80.4%] P < 0.01). There were no significant differences in performance between groups on individual encounters. The raters were consistent in their identification of key actions. The reliability of the eight-scenario assessment, with two raters for each scenario, was 0.80. CONCLUSION: Although anesthesiologists, on average, achieved a modestly higher overall score, there was marked and similar variability in both groups. This wide range suggests that certification in either discipline may not yield uniform acumen in management of simulated intraoperative emergencies. In both groups, there were practitioners who failed to diagnose and treat simulated emergencies. If this is reflective of clinical practice, it represents a patient safety concern. Simulation-based assessment provides a tool to determine the ability of practitioners to respond appropriately to clinical emergencies. If all practitioners could effectively manage these critical events, the standard of patient care and ultimately patient safety could be improved.

Protocol for the Effectiveness of an Anesthesiology Control Tower System in Improving Perioperative Quality Metrics and Clinical Outcomes: the TECTONICS randomized, pragmatic trial.

Introduction: Perioperative morbidity is a public health priority, and surgical volume is increasing rapidly. With advances in technology, there is an opportunity to research the utility of a telemedicine-based control center for anesthesia clinicians that assess risk, diagnoses negative patient trajectories, and implements evidence-based practices. Objectives: The primary objective of this trial is to determine whether an anesthesiology control tower (ACT) prevents clinically relevant adverse postoperative outcomes including 30-day mortality, delirium, respiratory failure, and acute kidney injury. Secondary objectives are to determine whether the ACT improves perioperative quality of care metrics including management of temperature, mean arterial pressure, mean airway pressure with mechanical ventilation, blood glucose, anesthetic concentration, antibiotic redosing, and efficient fresh gas flow. Methods and analysis: We are conducting a single center, randomized, controlled, phase 3 pragmatic clinical trial. A total of 58 operating rooms are randomized daily to receive support from the ACT or not. All adults (eighteen years and older) undergoing surgical procedures in these operating rooms are included and followed until 30 days after their surgery. Clinicians in operating rooms randomized to ACT support receive decision support from clinicians in the ACT. In operating rooms randomized to no intervention, the current standard of anesthesia care is delivered. The intention-to-treat principle will be followed for all analyses. Differences between groups will be presented with 99% confidence intervals; p-values <0.005 will be reported as providing compelling evidence, and p-values between 0.05 and 0.005 will be reported as providing suggestive evidence. Registration: TECTONICS is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03923699; registered on 23 April 2019.

Nurse anesthesia students' perceptions of the anesthesia patient simulator: a qualitative study.

The purpose of this study was to describe the perceptions of nurse anesthesia students (NAS) who used a MedSim simulator (MedSim USA, Inc, Ft Lauderdale, Fla) as part of their educational training. A convenience sample of 12 NAS in their first year of clinical training was researched. The researcher analyzed data qualitatively from observations made during 4 different sessions. Session 1 introduced the students to the simulator. Session 2 involved each student performing an anesthetic induction. A minor incident such as hypotension, hypertension, bradycardia or tachycardia occurred in session 3, and a major incident such as cardiac ischemia, anaphylaxis, bronchospasm, or malignant hyperthermia occurred in session 4. Data collection involved observation by the primary investigator, journal entries by the anesthesia students, and focus group interviews with the students. Results of the study indicate that, although students experience feelings of apprehension, uneasiness, or fear during the sessions, they felt it was very educational. Disadvantages include the lack of reality, lack of knowledge on handling crisis events, possibility of fixation errors, and the presence of anxiety. Advantages include improved critical thinking and decision-making skills, increased confidence, and improved clinical preparation. Results can be used to assist instructors in improving the students' learning experiences and to teach more effectively.

2007 simulation education summit.

The Society for Simulation in Healthcare convened the second Simulation Education Summit meeting in October 2007 in Chicago, Illinois. The purpose of the Summit was to bring together leaders of public, private, and government organizations, associations, and agencies involved in healthcare education for a focused discussion of standards for simulation-based applications. Sixty-eight participants representing 36 organizations discussed in structured small and large groups the criteria needed for various training and assessment applications using simulation. Although consensus was reached for many topics, there were also areas that required further thought and dialogue. This article is a summary of the results of these discussions along with a preliminary draft of a guideline for simulation-based education.

Performance of residents and anesthesiologists in a simulation-based skill assessment.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesiologists and anesthesia residents are expected to acquire and maintain skills to manage a wide range of acute intraoperative anesthetic events. The purpose of this study was to determine whether an inventory of simulated intraoperative scenarios provided a reliable and valid measure of anesthesia residents' and anesthesiologists' skill. METHODS: Twelve simulated acute intraoperative scenarios were designed to assess the performance of 64 residents and 35 anesthesiologists. The participants were divided into four groups based on their training and experience. There were 31 new CA-1, 12 advanced CA-1, and 22 CA-2/CA-3 residents as well as a group of 35 experienced anesthesiologists who participated in the assessment. Each participant managed a set of simulated events. The advanced CA-1 residents, CA-2/CA-3 residents, and 35 anesthesiologists managed 8 of 12 intraoperative simulation exercises. The 31 CA-1 residents each managed 3 intraoperative scenarios. RESULTS: The new CA-1 residents received lower scores on the simulated intraoperative events than the other groups of participants. The advanced CA-1 residents, CA-2/CA-3 residents, and anesthesiologists performed similarly on the overall assessment. There was a wide range of scores obtained by individuals in each group. A number of the exercises were difficult for the majority of participants to recognize and treat, but most events effectively discriminated among participants who achieved higher and lower overall scores. CONCLUSION: This simulation-based assessment provided a valid method to distinguish the skills of more experienced anesthesia residents and anesthesiologists from residents in early training. The overall score provided a reliable measure of a participant's ability to recognize and manage simulated acute intraoperative events. Additional studies are needed to determine whether these simulation-based assessments are valid measures of clinical performance.