"Attention Everyone, Time Out!": Safety Attitudes and Checklist Practices in Anesthesiology in Germany. A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The use of perioperative checklists has generated a growing body of evidence pointing toward reduction of mortality and morbidity, improved compliance with guidelines, reduction of adverse events, and improvements in human factor-related areas. Usual quality management metrics generally fall short in assessing compliance with their perioperative application. Our study assessed application attitudes and compliance with safety measures centered around the World Health Organization (WHO) "Safe Surgery Saves Lives" campaign as perceived by anesthesia professionals in Germany. METHODS: Three hundred sixteen physicians and nurses participated in our cross-sectional survey, and 304 completed all 35 questions. RESULTS: Only 59.5% of participants had knowledge of the theoretical framework behind the WHO campaign. During the "sign-in," patient ID and surgical site were checked in 99.6% and 95.1% as recommended by the WHO. Allergies were addressed by 89.2%, expected difficult airway by 65.7%, and the availability of blood products by 70.5%. A total of 84.9% of participants advocated for the time-out to include all persons present in the operating room, which was the case in 57.0%. A total of 40.8% stated that the time-out was only performed between anesthetist and surgeon; in 17.0% of cases, the patient was simultaneously draped and/or surgically scrubbed. No significant differences between hospital types were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study paints a heterogeneous picture of the implementation, usage, and safety attitudes concerning the Safe Surgery Checklist as promoted by the WHO. The lack of standardized execution and team-mindedness can be taken as further evidence for the importance of interdisciplinary training focusing on human factors, communication, and collaboration rather than the mere implementation by decree.

Ten years of the Helsinki Declaration on patient safety in anaesthesiology: An expert opinion on peri-operative safety aspects.

: Patient safety is an activity to mitigate preventable patient harm that may occur during the delivery of medical care. The European Board of Anaesthesiology (EBA)/European Union of Medical Specialists had previously published safety recommendations on minimal monitoring and postanaesthesia care, but with the growing public and professional interest it was decided to produce a much more encompassing document. The EBA and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) published a consensus on what needs to be done/achieved for improvement of peri-operative patient safety. During the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki/Finland in 2010, this vision was presented to anaesthesiologists, patients, industry and others involved in health care as the 'Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology'. In May/June 2020, ESA and EBA are celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology; a good opportunity to look back and forward evaluating what was achieved in the recent 10 years, and what needs to be done in the upcoming years. The Patient Safety and Quality Committee (PSQC) of ESA invited experts in their fields to contribute, and these experts addressed their topic in different ways; there are classical, narrative reviews, more systematic reviews, political statements, personal opinions and also original data presentation. With this publication we hope to further stimulate implementation of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology, as well as initiating relevant research in the future.

Applying the human factors analysis and classification system to critical incident reports in anaesthesiology.

BACKGROUND: The Human Factors Analysis and Classification System (HFACS) was developed as a practical taxonomy to investigate and analyse the human contribution to accidents and incidents. Based on Reason's "Swiss Cheese Model", it considers individual, environmental, leadership and organizational contributing factors in four hierarchical levels. The aim of this study was to assess the applicability of a modified HFACS taxonomy to incident reports from a large, anonymous critical incident database with the goal of gaining valuable insight into underlying, more systemic conditions and recurring schemes that might add important information for future incident avoidance. METHODS: We analysed 50 reports from an anonymous, anaesthesiologic, single-centre Critical Incident Reporting System using a modified HFACS-CIRS taxonomy. The 19 HFACS categories were further subdivided into a total of 117 nanocodes representing specific behaviours or preconditions for incident development. RESULTS: On an individual level, the most frequent contributions were decision errors, attributed to inadequate risk assessment or critical-thinking failure. Communication and Coordination, mostly due to inadequate or ineffective communication, was contributory in two-thirds of reports. Half of the reports showed contributory complex interactions in a sociotechnical environment. Ratability scores were noticeably lower for categories evaluating leadership and organizational influences, necessitating careful interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: We applied the HFACS taxonomy to the analysis of CIRS reports in anaesthesiology. This constitutes a structured approach that, especially when applied to a large data set, might help guide future mitigation and intervention strategies to reduce critical incidents and improve patient safety. Improved, more structured reporting templates could further optimize systematic analysis.

Pre-operative evaluation of adults undergoing elective noncardiac surgery: Updated guideline from the European Society of Anaesthesiology.

: The purpose of this update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) guidelines on the pre-operative evaluation of the adult undergoing noncardiac surgery is to present recommendations based on the available relevant clinical evidence. Well performed randomised studies on the topic are limited and therefore many recommendations rely to a large extent on expert opinion and may need to be adapted specifically to the healthcare systems of individual countries. This article aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthesiologists all over Europe to integrate - wherever possible - this knowledge into daily patient care. The Guidelines Committee of the ESA formed a task force comprising members of the previous task force, members of ESA scientific subcommittees and an open call for volunteers was made to all individual active members of the ESA and national societies. Electronic databases were searched from July 2010 (end of the literature search of the previous ESA guidelines on pre-operative evaluation) to May 2016 without language restrictions. A total of 34 066 abtracts were screened from which 2536 were included for further analysis. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members, individual or national (thus including most European national anaesthesia societies). Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.