Association Between Surgeon/Anesthesiologist Sex Discordance and 1-year Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: A Population-based Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between surgeon-anesthesiologist sex discordance and patient mortality after noncardiac surgery. BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests different practice patterns exist among female and male physicians. However, the influence of physician sex on team-based practices in the operating room and subsequent patient outcomes remains unclear in the context of noncardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a population-based, retrospective cohort study of adult Ontario residents who underwent index, inpatient noncardiac surgery between January 2007 and December 2017. The primary exposure was physician sex discordance (ie, the surgeon and anesthesiologist were of the opposite sex). The primary outcome was 1-year mortality. The association between physician sex discordance and patient outcomes was modeled using multivariable Cox proportional hazard regression with adjustment for relevant physician, patient, and hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Of 541,209 patients, 158,084 (29.2%) were treated by sex-discordant physician teams. Physician sex discordance was associated with a lower rate of mortality at 1 year [5.2% vs. 5.7%; adjusted HR: 0.95 (0.91-0.99)]. Patients treated by teams composed of female surgeons and male anesthesiologists were more likely to be alive at 1 year than those treated by all-male physician teams [adjusted HR: 0.90 (0.81-0.99)]. CONCLUSIONS: Noncardiac surgery patients had a lower likelihood of 1-year mortality when treated by sex-discordant surgeon-anesthesiologist teams. The likelihood of mortality was further reduced if the surgeon was female. Further research is needed to explore the underlying mechanisms of these observations and design strategies to diversify operating room teams to optimize performance and patient outcomes.

Age and its impact on crisis management performance and learning after simulation-based education by acute care physicians: a multicentre prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Physiological changes associated with ageing could negatively impact the crisis resource management skills of acute care physicians. This study was designed to determine whether physician age impacts crisis resource management skills, and crisis resource management skills learning and retention using full-body manikin simulation training in acute care physicians. METHODS: Acute care physicians at two Canadian universities participated in three 8-min simulated crisis (pulseless electrical activity) scenarios. An initial crisis scenario (pre-test) was followed by debriefing with a trained facilitator and a second crisis scenario (immediate post-test). Participants returned for a third crisis scenario 3-6 months later (retention post-test). RESULTS: For the 48 participants included in the final analysis, age negatively correlated with baseline Global Rating Scale (GRS; r=-0.30, P<0.05) and technical checklist scores (r=-0.44, P<0.01). However, only years in practice and prior simulation experience, but not age, were significant in a subsequent stepwise regression analysis. Learning from simulation-based education was shown with a mean difference in scores from pre-test to immediate post-test of 2.28 for GRS score (P<0.001) and 1.69 for technical checklist correct score (P<0.001); learning was retained for 3-6 months. Only prior simulation experience was significantly correlated with a decreased change in learning (r=-0.30, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: A reduced amount of prior simulation training and increased years in practice, but not age on its own, were significant predictors of low baseline crisis resource management performance. Simulation-based education leads to crisis resource management learning that is well retained for 3-6 months, regardless of age or years in practice.

Role of Oxygen and Its Radicals in Peripheral Nerve Regeneration: From Hypoxia to Physoxia to Hyperoxia.

Oxygen is compulsory for mitochondrial function and energy supply, but it has numerous more nuanced roles. The different roles of oxygen in peripheral nerve regeneration range from energy supply, inflammation, phagocytosis, and oxidative cell destruction in the context of reperfusion injury to crucial redox signaling cascades that are necessary for effective axonal outgrowth. A fine balance between reactive oxygen species production and antioxidant activity draws the line between physiological and pathological nerve regeneration. There is compelling evidence that redox signaling mediated by the Nox family of nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate (NADPH) oxidases plays an important role in peripheral nerve regeneration. Further research is needed to better characterize the role of Nox in physiological and pathological circumstances, but the available data suggest that the modulation of Nox activity fosters great therapeutic potential. One of the promising approaches to enhance nerve regeneration by modulating the redox environment is hyperbaric oxygen therapy. In this review, we highlight the influence of various oxygenation states, i.e., hypoxia, physoxia, and hyperoxia, on peripheral nerve repair and regeneration. We summarize the currently available data and knowledge on the effectiveness of using hyperbaric oxygen therapy to treat nerve injuries and discuss future directions.

Effectiveness of interprofessional teamwork interventions for improving occupational well-being among perioperative healthcare providers: a systematic review.

The occupational well-being of healthcare providers is crucial for safe and effective patient care, especially in the complex, high acuity operating room (OR) setting. There has been a recent proliferation of interventions to improve teamwork in the OR setting, but the impact of these interventions on clinician occupational well-being has yet to be systematically assessed. This systematic review aimed to summarize the impact of interprofessional teamwork interventions on occupational well-being among perioperative healthcare providers. We included all qualitative or quantitative peer-reviewed studies assessing a multidisciplinary teamwork intervention including members of at least two professions. We included seven studies which involved checklists (n = 2), simulation-based training (n = 2), and various teamwork development and training programs (n = 3). Five of the seven included studies reported no significant effect on job satisfaction, while one found a significant negative association between the intervention and job satisfaction (p < .0001), and another showed significant decrease in worker stress. Our findings highlight the gaps in our understanding of the impact of interprofessional teamwork interventions on healthcare worker well-being in the perioperative environment and the multi-level factors influencing OR teamwork, intervention implementation, and well-being across the different professions.

Analyzing interprofessional teamwork in the operating room: An exploratory observational study using conventional and alternative approaches.

Intraoperative teamwork is vital for patient safety. Conventional tools for studying intraoperative teamwork typically rely on behaviorally anchored rating scales applied at the individual or team level, while others capture narrative information across several units of analysis. This prospective observational study characterizes teamwork using two conventional tools (Operating Theatre Team Non-Technical Skills Assessment Tool [NOTECHS]; Team Emergency Assessment Measure [TEAM]), and one alternative approach (modified-Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety [SEIPS] model). We aimed to explore the advantages and disadvantages of each for providing feedback to improve teamwork practice. Fifty consecutive surgical cases at a Canadian academic hospital were recorded with the OR Black Box®, analyzed by trained raters, and summarized descriptively. Teamwork performance was consistently high within and across cases rated with NOTECHS and TEAMS. For cases analyzed with the modified-SEIPS tool, both optimal and suboptimal teamwork behaviors were identified, and team resilience was frequently observed. NOTECHS and TEAM provided summative assessments and overall pattern descriptions, while SEIPS facilitated a deeper understanding of teamwork processes. As healthcare organizations continue to prioritize teamwork improvement, SEIPS may provide valuable insights regarding teamwork behavior and the broader context influencing performance. This may ultimately enhance the development and effectiveness of multi-level teamwork interventions.

Development and evaluation of an evidence-based, theory-grounded online Clinical Frailty Scale tutorial.

INTRODUCTION: Frailty is a robust predictor of adverse outcomes in older people. Practice guidelines recommend routine screening for frailty; however, this does not occur regularly. The Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) is a validated, feasible instrument that can be used in a variety of clinical settings and is associated with many adverse outcomes. Our objective was to develop and evaluate an online training module to guide frailty assessment using the CFS. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team of clinical experts developed an evidence-based, theory-grounded online training module for users who wished to perform frailty assessment using the CFS. The module was prospectively evaluated for user satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility using a standardised questionnaire. Qualitative feedback was analysed with thematic analysis. RESULTS: Version 1 of the CFS module was used 627 times from 21 October 2019 to 24 March 2020. Satisfaction, effectiveness and feasibility of the module were positively rated (≥4/5 on a 5-point Likert scale n = 582 [93%], n = 507, [81%], n = 575, [91%], respectively). Qualitative feedback highlighted ease of use, likelihood of users to share the module with others and opportunities to increase multimedia content. CONCLUSION: An online tutorial, designed using evidence and theory to guide frailty assessment using the CFS, was positively rated by users. The module's content and structure was rated effective and feasible, and users were satisfied with, and likely to share, the module. Research evaluating the module's impact on the accuracy of frailty assessment is required.

Tranexamic acid for prevention of bleeding in cesarean delivery: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding is the leading cause of maternal mortality in the world. Tranexamic acid reduces bleeding in trauma and surgery. Several systematic reviews of randomized trials have investigated tranexamic acid in the prevention of bleeding in cesarean delivery. However, the conclusions from systematic reviews are conflicting. This overview aims to summarize the evidence and explore the reasons for conflicting conclusions across the systematic reviews. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was conducted from inception to April 2021. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessments were performed by two independent reviewers. A Measurement Tool to Assess Reviews 2 and the Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews were used for study appraisal. A qualitative synthesis of evidence is presented. RESULTS: In all, 14 systematic reviews were included in our analysis. Across these reviews, there were 32 relevant randomized trials. A modest reduction in blood transfusions and bleeding outcomes was found by most systematic reviews. Overall confidence in results varied from low to critically low. All of the included systematic reviews were at high risk of bias. Quality of evidence from randomized trials was uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews investigating prophylactic tranexamic acid in cesarean delivery are heterogeneous in terms of methodological and reporting quality. Tranexamic acid may reduce blood transfusion and bleeding outcomes, but rigorous well-designed research is needed due to the limitations of the included studies. Data on safety and adverse effects are insufficient to draw conclusions.

Patient prioritization of routine and patient-reported postoperative outcome measures: a prospective, nested cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Understanding which outcomes matter most and improving outcomes for the growing population of older surgical patients are top priorities for Canadian anesthesia research. Nevertheless, there is little understanding of which outcomes older surgical patients prioritize most highly. We evaluated how older people prioritized six outcomes after elective noncardiac surgery. These outcomes were recommended in core outcome sets for perioperative medicine. METHODS: Following ethical approval, we conducted a prospective, nested, cross-sectional study of people one year after they had major elective noncardiac surgery. Participants were asked to rate the importance of six commonly measured outcomes (complications, length of stay, discharge disposition, days at home, disability score, and developing a new disability) on an 11-point Likert scale. Open-ended questions elicited other preferences. Pairwise comparisons were evaluated using Bayesian multivariate regression. K-means clustering identified subgroups of patients based on overall prioritization. Thematic analysis was applied to open-ended responses. RESULTS: One hundred and one consecutive participants responded. All outcomes scored at least 7.7/10 on average. Complications and discharge location were most highly rated, but only days at home and length of stay had substantial probability (> 99%) of being rated lower than the other four outcomes. Thematic analysis identified the need for greater procedure-specific information, support services, and physical recovery measures. CONCLUSIONS: Commonly recorded and recommended outcomes are reassuringly relevant to older people; however, system-related measures are less highly valued than those more directly related to health and function. Outcomes may need to be personalized to properly evaluate the success of perioperative care.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Pour la recherche canadienne en anesthésie, l'une des priorités absolues consiste à comprendre quelles issues comptent le plus et à améliorer les issues pour la population croissante de patients chirurgicaux plus âgés. Néanmoins, nous ne savons que peu de choses quant aux issues les plus importantes pour les patients chirurgicaux plus âgés. Nous avons évalué la façon dont les personnes âgées priorisaient six issues après une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente. Ces issues étaient recommandées au sein d'ensembles de critères de base en médecine périopératoire. MéTHODE: Après avoir obtenu l'approbation du comité d'éthique, nous avons mené une étude prospective, imbriquée et transversale auprès de patients un an après une chirurgie majeure non cardiaque non urgente. Les participants devaient évaluer l'importance de six critères couramment mesurés (complications, durée de séjour, dispositions à la sortie, jours à la maison, score d'invalidité et développement d'une nouvelle incapacité) sur une échelle de Likert de 11 points. Les questions ouvertes ont suscité d'autres préférences. Les comparaisons par paires ont été évaluées par régression multivariée bayésienne. L'algorithme des K-moyennes a identifié des sous-groupes de patients en fonction de leur priorisation globale. L'analyse thématique a été appliquée aux réponses ouvertes. RéSULTATS: Cent un participants consécutifs ont répondu. Tous les critères ont obtenu une note d'au moins 7,7/10 en moyenne. Les complications et le lieu de sortie étaient les mieux notés, mais seuls les jours à la maison et la durée de séjour ont affiché une probabilité substantielle (> 99 %) d'être évalués moins haut que les quatre autres critères. L'analyse thématique a révélé la nécessité d'une plus grande information spécifique à l'intervention, de services de soutien et de mesures de rétablissement physique. CONCLUSION: De façon rassurante, les critères couramment enregistrés et recommandés sont pertinents pour les personnes âgées; toutefois, les mesures liées au système sont moins appréciées que celles qui sont plus directement liées à la santé et à la fonction. Il est possible que les critères dussent être personnalisés pour évaluer de façon adéquate le succès des soins périopératoires.

Airway recommendations for perioperative patients during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review.

PURPOSE: Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists. SOURCE: Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations that focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 were included. Accelerated screening was used; data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data were organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed among recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended videolaryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%. CONCLUSION: Recommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent but also show significant differences. Given the paucity of data early in the pandemic, it is not surprising that identified publications largely reflected expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. We suggest future efforts should promote coordinated responses and provide suggestions for studying and establishing best practices in perioperative patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date created, 26 March 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: De nombreuses recommandations ont été publiées pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes et périopératoires pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. Nous avons identifié, synthétisé et comparé les lignes directrices destinées aux anesthésiologistes. SOURCES: Les sites internet des sociétés membres de la Fédération mondiale des sociétés d'anesthésiologistes et de la Société européenne d'anesthésiologie ont été consultés. Les recommandations axées sur la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 prouvée ou potentielle ont été incluses. Une sélection accélérée a été utilisée; les données ont été extraites par un examinateur et vérifiées par un second. Les données ont été thématiquement organisées en fonction de la phase périopératoire des soins. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Trente ensembles uniques de recommandations ont été identifiés. Aucun de ces ensemble n'a fait état de méthodes de recherche ou de sélection systématiques des données probantes à inclure. Quatre ont été mis à jour après leur publication initiale. Pour l'induction et la prise en charge des voies aériennes, la plupart ont recommandé de minimiser le personnel et de demander à l'anesthésiologiste le plus expérimenté de réaliser l'intubation trachéale. Une congruence significative a été observée parmi les recommandations qui portaient sur les équipements de protection individuelle. Parmi les lignes directrices évoquant les méthodes d'intubation trachéale, la plupart (96 %) ont recommandé la vidéolaryngoscopie, alors qu'il existait une discordance concernant l'utilisation de bronchoscopes flexibles. En peropératoire, 23 % ont suggéré des techniques d'anesthésie spécifiques et la plupart (63 %) ont recommandé une salle d'opération spécifique pour les patients atteints de COVID-19. En postopératoire, une minorité a abordé le sujet des procédures d'extubation (33 %) ou des soins en salle de réveil (40 %). Les considérations non techniques ont été traitées dans 27 % des cas et le soutien psychologique aux fournisseurs de soins de santé dans 10 %. CONCLUSION: Les recommandations pour la prise en charge périopératoire des voies aériennes des patients atteints de COVID-19 se chevauchent dans une large mesure, mais montrent également des différences significatives. Compte tenu de la rareté des données au début de la pandémie, il n'est pas surprenant que les publications identifiées reflètent en grande partie l'opinion d'experts plutôt que de se fonder sur des données probantes empiriques. Nous suggérons que les efforts futurs soient déployés de manière à promouvoir des réponses coordonnées et proposer des suggestions pour étudier et établir les meilleures pratiques chez les patients en période périopératoire. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date de création, 26 mars 2020.

Peripheral Nerve Blocks and Potentially Attributable Adverse Events in Older People with Hip Fracture: A Retrospective Population-based Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral nerve blocks are being used with increasing frequency for management of hip fracture-related pain. Despite converging evidence that nerve blocks may be beneficial, safety data are lacking. This study hypothesized that peripheral nerve block receipt would not be associated with adverse events potentially attributable to nerve blocks, as well as overall patient safety incidents while in hospital. METHODS: This was a preregistered, retrospective population-based cohort study using linked administrative data. This study identified all hip fracture admissions in people 50 yr of age or older and identified all nerve blocks (although we were unable to ascertain the specific anatomic location or type of block), potentially attributable adverse events (composite of seizures, fall-related injuries, cardiac arrest, nerve injury), and any patient safety events using validated codes. The study also estimated the unadjusted and adjusted association of nerve blocks with adverse events; adjusted absolute risk differences were also calculated. RESULTS: In total, 91,563 hip fracture patients from 2009 to 2017 were identified; 15,631 (17.1%) received a nerve block, and 5,321 (5.8%; 95% CI, 5.7 to 6.0%) patients experienced a potentially nerve block-attributable adverse event: 866 (5.5%) in patients with a block and 4,455 (5.9%) without a block. Before and after adjustment, nerve blocks were not associated with potentially attributable adverse events (adjusted odds ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.15; and adjusted risk difference, 0.3%, 95% CI, -0.1 to 0.8). CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that nerve blocks in hip fracture patients are not associated with higher rates of potentially nerve block-attributable adverse events, although these findings may be influenced by limitations in routinely collected administrative data.

Six Sigma in surgery: how to create a safer culture in the operating theatre using innovative technology.

Safe delivery of patient care in the operating theatre is complex and co-dependent of many individual, organisational, and environmental factors, including patient, task and technology, individual, and human factors. The Six Sigma approach aims to implement a data-driven strategy to reduce variability and consequently improve safety. Analytical data platforms such as a Black Box ought to be embraced to support process optimisation and ultimately create a higher level of Six Sigma safety performance of the operating theatre team.

How gender shapes interprofessional teamwork in the operating room: a qualitative secondary analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial implications for healthcare provider practice and patient outcomes, gender has yet to be systematically explored with regard to interprofessional operating room (OR) teamwork. We aimed to explore and describe how gender and additional social identity factors shape experiences and perceptions of teamwork in the OR. METHODS: This study was a qualitative secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with OR team members conducted between November 2018 and July 2019. Participants were recruited across hospitals in Ontario, Canada. We conducted both purposive and snowball sampling until data saturation was reached. Transcripts were analyzed thematically by two independent research team members, moving from open to axial coding. RESULTS: Sixty-six interviews of OR healthcare professionals were completed: anesthesia (n=17), nursing (n=19), perfusion (n=2), and surgery (n=26). Traditional gender roles, norms, and stereotypes were perceived and experienced by both women and men, but with different consequences. Both women and men participants described challenges that women face in the OR, such as being perceived negatively for displaying leadership behaviours. Participants also reported that interactions and behaviours vary depending on the team gender composition, and that other social identities, such as age and race, often interact with gender. Nevertheless, participants indicated a belief that the influence of gender in the OR may be modified. CONCLUSIONS: The highly gendered reality of the OR creates an environment conducive to breakdowns in communuication and patient safety risks in addition to diminishing team morale, psychological safety, and provider well-being. Consequently, until teamwork interventions adequately account for gender, they are unlikely to be optimally effective or sustainable.

Implementation of the Operating Room Black Box Research Program at the Ottawa Hospital Through Patient, Clinical, and Organizational Engagement: Case Study.

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of surgical patient harm is preventable; yet, our ability to systematically learn from these incidents and improve clinical practice remains limited. The Operating Room Black Box was developed to address the need for comprehensive assessments of clinical performance in the operating room. It captures synchronized audio, video, patient, and environmental clinical data in real time, which are subsequently analyzed by a combination of expert raters and software-based algorithms. Despite its significant potential to facilitate research and practice improvement, there are many potential implementation challenges at the institutional, clinician, and patient level. This paper summarizes our approach to implementation of the Operating Room Black Box at a large academic Canadian center. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to contribute to the development of evidence-based best practices for implementing innovative technology in the operating room for direct observation of the clinical performance by using the case of the Operating Room Black Box. Specifically, we outline the systematic approach to the Operating Room Black Box implementation undertaken at our center. METHODS: Our implementation approach included seeking support from hospital leadership; building frontline support and a team of champions among patients, nurses, anesthesiologists, and surgeons; accounting for stakeholder perceptions using theory-informed qualitative interviews; engaging patients; and documenting the implementation process, including barriers and facilitators, using the consolidated framework for implementation research. RESULTS: During the 12-month implementation period, we conducted 23 stakeholder engagement activities with over 200 participants. We recruited 10 clinician champions representing nursing, anesthesia, and surgery. We formally interviewed 15 patients and 17 perioperative clinicians and identified key themes to include in an information campaign run as part of the implementation process. Two patient partners were engaged and advised on communications as well as grant and protocol development. Many anticipated and unanticipated challenges were encountered at all levels. Implementation was ultimately successful, with the Operating Room Black Box installed in August 2018, and data collection beginning shortly thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: This paper represents the first step toward evidence-guided implementation of technologies for direct observation of performance for research and quality improvement in surgery. With technology increasingly being used in health care settings, the health care community should aim to optimize implementation processes in the best interest of health care professionals and patients.

Measuring the teamwork performance of operating room teams: a systematic review of assessment tools and their measurement properties.

Teamwork is fundamental to surgical patient safety but is inconsistently measured. While many tools have been developed for elective intraoperative situations, it is unclear which is the most robust. This systematic review aimed to identify tools to measure the teamwork of operating room teams. Studies were included if they examined the measurement properties of these tools. PsycINFO, Embase (via OVID), CINAHL, ERIC, Medline and Medline in Process (via OVID) were searched through to May 3, 2019, as were reference lists of included studies and previously published relevant reviews. Retrieved articles were screened and data extracted in duplicate by two independent reviewers. Quality was assessed using the COSMIN checklist. Of the 2121 references identified, 14 studies of six assessment tools were included. Tools were validated across various specialties, mostly in clinical rather than simulated settings. The Observational Teamwork Assessment for Surgery (OTAS) and Operating Theater Team Non-Technical Skills Assessment Tool (NOTECHS) were the most frequently investigated tools. Though acceptable for assessing teamwork, both NOTECHS and OTAS rely on the questionable assumption that the teamwork of a team is equivalent to the sum of individual performances. Future studies may investigate other assessment tools that assess the whole team as the unit of analysis along with the potential of these tools to provide healthcare providers with meaningful feedback in clinical practice.

Using an artificial intelligence tool can be as accurate as human assessors in level one screening for a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) offers a promising solution to expedite various phases of the systematic review process such as screening. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the accuracy of an AI tool in identifying eligible references for a systematic review compared to identification by human assessors. METHODS: For the case study (a systematic review of knowledge translation interventions), we used a diagnostic accuracy design and independently assessed for eligibility a set of articles (n = 300) using human raters and the AI system DistillerAI (Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada). We analysed a series of 64 possible confidence levels for the AI's decisions and calculated several standard parameters of diagnostic accuracy for each. RESULTS: When set to a lower AI confidence threshold of 0.1 or greater and an upper threshold of 0.9 or lower, DistillerAI made article selection decisions very similarly to human assessors. Within this range, DistillerAI made a decision on the majority of articles (93-100%), with a sensitivity of 1.0 and specificity ranging from 0.9 to 1.0. CONCLUSION: DistillerAI appears to be accurate in its assessment of articles in a case study of 300 articles. Further experimentation with DistillerAI will establish its performance among other subject areas.

Nontechnical Skill Assessment of the Collective Surgical Team Using the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) System.

OBJECTIVE: To validate the Non-Technical Skills for Surgeons (NOTSS) system for assessment of the collective surgical teams' nontechnical skills after observing recordings of actual OR environment. BACKGROUND: The NOTSS system is a widely accepted tool to measure nontechnical skills of individual surgeons, and has mostly been used in the simulated setting. Surgical procedures are rarely performed by a single surgeon, but by a surgical team of attending surgeons, surgical assistants, and surgical trainees. Therefore, assessment of nontechnical skills may benefit from holistic assessment of the collective surgical teams. METHODS: Five trained participants assessed surgical team and attending surgeon using the NOTSS system after watching ten 20-minute long videos obtained from live OR. A set of reference ratings was provided by a multidisciplinary expert committee. We performed analyses to assess system sensitivity; examine inter-rater reliability of ratings; investigate concurrent construct validity; and assess feasibility and acceptability of using the NOTSS system to measure surgical team performance. RESULTS: There was adequate system sensitivity when comparing participants' and reference ratings. Inter-rater reliability among the participants' ratings was good except for decision-making category. The level of inter-rater reliability was similar when rating teams and attending surgeons. There was strong positive correlation between teams' and attending surgeons' NOTSS ratings at category [Pearson coefficient 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.82-0.89] and element levels (0.83, 95% CI 0.80-0.85), demonstrating evidence of concurrent construct validity. The participants felt that the use of NOTSS system to measure teams' nontechnical skills was acceptable and feasible to a fair extent. CONCLUSION: The NOTSS system, although developed for assessment of individual surgeons, is a useful tool for observing and rating surgical teams.

Association of intraoperative anaesthesia handovers with patient morbidity and mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Handover of anaesthesia patient care during surgery is common; however, its association with patient outcome is unclear. This systematic review aimed to assess the impact of anaesthesia handover during surgery on patient outcome. METHODS: All prospective and retrospective clinical studies specifically investigating the association of intraoperative transfer of anaesthesia care between anaesthesia providers in the operating room with patient morbidity and mortality were included. Searches were conducted from inception to April 24, 2019 in Medline, Medline in Process, CINAHL, and Embase. Reference lists of included studies were searched. Studies were assessed for eligibility and data were extracted by independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. Risk of bias was assessed in duplicate using the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies. Data were summarised narratively given substantial heterogeneity. An exploratory meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model for a subset of comparable studies. RESULTS: Eight studies met the inclusion criteria. Six studies focused on patients as the unit of analysis (npatients=605 678) and two focused on anaesthesia providers as the unit of analysis (nproviders=307). Seven studies identified a relationship between anaesthesia handovers and adverse patient outcomes, whereas one suggested that handover may be beneficial to error detection or rectification. Included studies were of fair or good quality. Meta-analysis of four studies found a 40% increased risk of patients experiencing an adverse event when an anaesthesia handover occurs during the procedure (pooled risk ratio=1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 1.65; P<0.001; I2=98%). CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative anaesthesia handovers generally increase morbidity and mortality for surgical patients but could have the potential to improve safety in certain contexts. Future research should determine the specific handover characteristics that impact safety.

La définition des moments critiques et non critiques en salle d'opération : une étude de consensus Delphi modifiée.

BACKGROUND: While the operating room (OR) has significantly benefited from aviation strategies to improve safety, the rate of avoidable human errors remains relatively high. One key aviation strategy that has yet to be formally established in the OR is the "sterile cockpit" rule, which prohibits all non-essential behaviours during critical moments of a flight. Applying this rule to the OR may enhance patient safety, but the critical moments of surgery need to be defined first. METHODS: This study used a modified Delphi methodology to determine critical moments during surgery according to OR team members across institutions, professions, and specialties. Analysis occurred after each round. The stopping criterion was consensus on 80% of survey items or no change in the mean score for any individual item between two consecutive rounds. RESULTS: The first round included 304 respondents. Of these, 115 completed the second-round survey, and 75 completed all three rounds (27 nurses, 29 anesthesiologists, 19 surgeons). Critical moments obtained by consensus were: induction of anesthesia; emergence from anesthesia; preoperative briefing; final counts at the end of the procedure; anesthesiologist- or surgeon-relevant intraoperative event; handovers; procedure-specific high-risk surgical moments; crisis resource management situations; medication and equipment preparation; and key medication administration. CONCLUSIONS: By defining the most critical moments of surgery, future research can determine the relative importance of behaviour and actions at each stage and target interventions to these stages.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: Alors que la salle d'opération (SOP) bénéficie considérablement des stratégies de l'aviation pour améliorer la sécurité, le taux d'erreurs humaines évitables y demeure relativement élevé. L'une des stratégies clés de l'aviation qui doit encore être mise en place de manière formelle en SOP est la règle de la « cabine de pilotage stérile ¼, qui interdit tout comportement non essentiel pendant les moments critiques d'un vol. L'application de cette règle à la SOP pourrait améliorer la sécurité des patients, mais les moments critiques d'une chirurgie doivent d'abord être définis. MéTHODE: Cette étude a utilisé une méthodologie Delphi modifiée afin de déterminer les moments critiques pendant une chirurgie selon les membres des équipes de SOP en provenance de différentes institutions, professions et spécialités. Une analyse a eu lieu après chaque itération. Le critère d'arrêt était un consensus sur 80 % des items du sondage ou aucun changement dans la note moyenne obtenue pour n'importe quel item individuel entre deux itérations consécutives. RéSULTATS: La première série a inclus 304 répondants. Parmi ceux-ci, 115 ont complété le deuxième sondage, et 75 ont complété les trois séries de questions (27 infirmiers/infirmières, 29 anesthésiologistes, 19 chirurgiens/chirurgiennes). Les moments critiques retenus par consensus étaient : l'induction de l'anesthésie; l'émergence de l'anesthésie; le temps d'arrêt préopératoire; les décomptes finaux à la fin de l'intervention; les événements peropératoires importants pour l'anesthésiologiste ou le chirurgien; les transferts; les moments chirurgicaux à risque élevé spécifiques à l'intervention; les situations de gestion de crise des ressources; la préparation des médicaments et du matériel; et l'administration de médicaments clés. CONCLUSION: En définissant les moments les plus critiques de la chirurgie, les recherches futures pourront déterminer l'importance relative des comportements et des actes à chaque étape et cibler les interventions en fonction de ces étapes.

Cognitive aids with roles defined (CARD) for obstetrical crises: a multisite before-and-after cohort study.

PURPOSE: Patient outcome during an obstetrical emergency depends on prompt coordination of an interprofessional team. The cognitive aids with roles defined (CARD) is a cognitive aid that addresses the issue of teamwork in crisis management. This study evaluated the clinical impact of implementing the CARD cognitive aid during emergency Cesarean deliveries. METHODS: We conducted a prospective before-and-after cohort trial at the maternity units of two Canadian academic hospital campuses. Both sites received didactic online training regarding teamwork during crises, which involved training on using CARD for the "CARD" campus (intervention) and no mention of CARD at the "no CARD" campus (control). The primary outcome was the total time to delivery after the call for an emergency Cesarean delivery. Secondary outcomes included specific intervals of time within the time to delivery and clinical outcomes for both the babies and mothers. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 267 eligible emergency Cesarean deliveries that occurred between January 11 2014 and December 31 2017. The use of CARD did not significantly change the median [interquartile range] time to delivery of the baby during an emergency Cesarean delivery from the pre-intervention to the post-intervention time period (17 [12-28] vs 15 [13-20], respectively; median difference, 2; 95% confidence interval, -1 to 5; P = 0.36). The clinical outcomes for the baby or the mother and other secondary outcomes also did not change. CONCLUSIONS: The CARD cognitive aid did not significantly improve time-based or clinical maternal and neonatal outcomes of emergency Cesarean delivery at our academic maternity unit.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les devenirs des patientes pendant les urgences obstétricales dépendent de la coordination rapide d'une équipe interprofessionnelle. Le système CARD (Cognitive Aids with Roles Defined) est un outil de soutien cognitif qui est centré sur le travail d'équipe dans la gestion de crise. Cette étude a évalué l'impact clinique de la mise en œuvre d'un système CARD pendant les accouchements par césarienne d'urgence. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte prospective avant / après dans les services de maternité de deux campus hospitaliers universitaires canadiens. Les deux sites ont eu accès à une formation didactique en ligne portant sur le travail d'équipe pendant les crises; dans le campus « CARD ¼ (groupe intervention), une formation sur l'utilisation du système CARD a été incluse, alors qu'aucune mention du système n'a été faite dans le campus « sans CARD ¼ (groupe témoin). Le critère d'évaluation principal était le délai total jusqu'à l'accouchement après l'appel pour un accouchement par césarienne d'urgence. Les critères secondaires comprenaient les intervalles spécifiques de temps jusqu'à l'accouchement et les pronostics cliniques des bébés et de leurs mères. RéSULTATS: Nous avons analysé les données de 267 accouchements par césarienne d'urgence éligibles survenus entre le 11 janvier 2014 et le 31 décembre 2017. L'utilisation du système CARD n'a pas modifié de manière significative le délai médian [écart interquartile] jusqu'à l'accouchement du bébé pendant un accouchement par césarienne d'urgence tel que mesuré entre le moment pré-intervention et le moment post-intervention (17 [12­28] vs 15 [13­20], respectivement; différence médiane, 2; intervalle de confiance 95 %, −1 à 5; P = 0,36). Les pronostics cliniques des bébés et des mères et les autres critères d'évaluation secondaires n'ont pas non plus été modifiés. CONCLUSION: Le système CARD n'a pas amélioré de façon significative les pronostics maternels et néonatals fondés sur le temps ou la clinique en cas d'accouchement par césarienne d'urgence dans notre service de maternité universitaire.

Can preventive hyperbaric oxygen therapy optimise surgical outcome?: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A primary underlying cause of postoperative complications is related to the surgical stress response, which may be mitigated by hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT), the intermittent administration of oxygen at a pressure higher than the atmospheric pressure at sea level. Promising clinical studies have emerged suggesting HBOT's efficacy for reducing some postoperative complications. Notwithstanding, the effectiveness (if any) of HBOT across a range of procedures and postoperative outcomes has yet to be clearly quantified. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed to summarise the existing literature on peri-operative HBOT to investigate its potential to optimise surgical patient outcome. DESIGN: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with narrative summary of results. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched without language restrictions through to 19 June 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they involved patients of any age undergoing any surgical procedure and provided with at least one HBOT session in the peri-operative period. Two independent reviewers screened the initial identified trials and determined those to be included. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs. RESULTS: The search retrieved 775 references, of which 13 RCTs were included (627 patients). Ten RCTs (546 patients) reported treatment was effective for improving at least one of the patient outcomes assessed, while two studies (55 patients) did not find any benefit and one study (26 patients) found a negative effect. A wide range of patient outcomes were reported, and several other methodological limitations were observed among the included studies, such as limited use of sham comparator and lack of blinding. CONCLUSION: Peri-operative preventive HBOT may be a promising intervention to improve surgical patient outcome. However, future work should consider addressing the methodological weaknesses identified in this review. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol (CRD42018102737) was registered with the International ProspectiveRegister of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).