Legal and ethical implications of defining an optimum means of achieving unconsciousness in assisted dying.

A decision by a society to sanction assisted dying in any form should logically go hand-in-hand with defining the acceptable method(s). Assisted dying is legal in several countries and we have reviewed the methods commonly used, contrasting these with an analysis of capital punishment in the USA. We expected that, since a common humane aim is to achieve unconsciousness at the point of death, which then occurs rapidly without pain or distress, there might be a single technique being used. However, the considerable heterogeneity in methods suggests that an optimum method of achieving unconsciousness remains undefined. In voluntary assisted dying (in some US states and European countries), the common method to induce unconsciousness appears to be self-administered barbiturate ingestion, with death resulting slowly from asphyxia due to cardiorespiratory depression. Physician-administered injections (a combination of general anaesthetic and neuromuscular blockade) are an option in Dutch guidelines. Hypoxic methods involving helium rebreathing have also been reported. The method of capital punishment (USA) resembles the Dutch injection technique, but specific drugs, doses and monitoring employed vary. However, for all these forms of assisted dying, there appears to be a relatively high incidence of vomiting (up to 10%), prolongation of death (up to 7 days), and re-awakening from coma (up to 4%), constituting failure of unconsciousness. This raises a concern that some deaths may be inhumane, and we have used lessons from the most recent studies of accidental awareness during anaesthesia to describe an optimal means that could better achieve unconsciousness. We found that the very act of defining an 'optimum' itself has important implications for ethics and the law.

[Management of the difficult airway : Overview of the current guidelines]. / Management des schwierigen Atemwegs : Übersicht über die aktuellen Leitlinien.

Several national airway task forces have recently updated their recommendations for the management of the difficult airway in adults. Routinely responding to airway difficulties with an algorithm-based strategy is consistently supported. The focus is increasingly not on tools and devices but more on good planning, preparation and communication. In the case of anticipated airway difficulties the airway should be secured when the patient is awake with maintenance of spontaneous ventilation. Unaltered a flexible bronchoscopic intubation technique is advised as a standard of care in such patients. The importance of maintenance of oxygenation is emphasized. Face mask ventilation and the use of supraglottic devices are recommended if unexpected airway difficulties occur. Face mask ventilation may be facilitated and optimised by early administration of neuromuscular blocking agents. If required, in not fastened patients threatened by acute hypoxia, carefully applied and pressure-controlled ventilation may ensure sufficient oxygenation until the airway is secured. Apnoeic oxygen techniques are recommended in high-risk patients and to relieve the time pressure of falling oxygen saturation during decision-making processes. The early use of video laryngoscopy is advised for endotracheal intubation in the case of failed direct laryngoscopy or if intubation is expected to be difficult. For the coverage of cannot intubate-cannot oxygenate scenarios, second generation supraglottic devices and invasive airway access are advocated. The discussion regarding the optimal technique for emergency invasive airway access is still in progress. In the case of uncontrollable respiratory deterioration and progressive hypoxia, the algorithm must be consistently executed and without delay due to ineffective activities (straightforward strategy). Although there is no evidence to support the selection of a particular approach, the importance and the need for a defined airway concept/algorithm in any anesthesia department is fostered. Simplicity and clarity are essential for recall under stressful and time-sensitive conditions. The algorithm should be adapted to local conditions and preferences and devices should be limited to a definite number. The acquisition and maintenance of expertise by education and training is demanded.

Influence of quality of recovery on patient satisfaction with anaesthesia and surgery: a prospective observational cohort study.

Patient satisfaction and quality of recovery are important measures of quality. Whether, and to what extent, patient satisfaction is influenced by quality of recovery, however, is not clear. The aim of this study was to evaluate the additional influence of quality of recovery on total patient satisfaction with anaesthesia and surgery. In this prospective cohort study, we used a validated quality of recovery questionnaire and a multi-item patient satisfaction questionnaire. Patients completed the quality of recovery questionnaire pre-operatively and 24 h postoperatively. One to two weeks after discharge, a third quality of recovery questionnaire was sent out, together with the patient satisfaction questionnaire. If no response was received after 2 weeks, a reminder containing the quality of recovery and the satisfaction questionnaire were mailed. Seven hundred and thirty-four patients were consecutively assessed for eligibility. Five hundred and seventy-nine patients completed at least one questionnaire (recruitment rate 79%). Four hundred and sixty-seven patients (81%) completed all four questionnaires. The total satisfaction score was high, with a mean (SD) of 94.6 (10.7) on a 0-100 scale. Correlation analysis between quality of recovery and total patient satisfaction showed correlations of 0.2-0.3. Testing different aspects of quality of recovery in models already containing the significant factors of patient satisfaction did not improve the model fit markedly. We conclude that quality of recovery has only a marginal additional effect on total patient satisfaction with anaesthesia and surgery.

Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia - Part 1: satisfaction as part of outcome - and what satisfies patients.

Patients' involvement in all decision processes is becoming increasingly important in modern healthcare. Patient satisfaction is a sensitive measure of a well-functioning health service system. The objective of this review is to discuss patient satisfaction as part of outcome quality, to define the somewhat abstract term 'satisfaction', and to discuss the role of surrogate markers within the field of satisfaction with anaesthesia care. We critically discuss what is relevant to satisfy patients with anaesthesia care, and we provide guidance on improving satisfaction.

Patient satisfaction with anaesthesia - Part 2: construction and quality assessment of questionnaires.

The construction of a new, valid and reliable questionnaire to measure patient satisfaction is a complex and time-consuming task. It must follow a rigorous, step-by-step approach, and should as a minimum include elements of content validity, criterion validity, construct validity and reliability. The objective of this review is to present a protocol for the construction of a psychometric questionnaire, supplemented by practical aspects for researchers and clinicians.

Implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia and its influence on patient satisfaction.

There is a lack of data about the implementation of shared decision making in anaesthesia. To assess patients' preference to be involved in medical decision making and its influence on patient satisfaction, we studied 197 matched pairs (patients and anaesthetists) using two previously validated questionnaires. Before surgery, patients had to decide between general vs regional anaesthesia and, where appropriate, between conventional postoperative pain therapy vs catheter techniques. One hundred and eighty-six patients (94%) wished to be involved in shared decision making. One hundred and twenty-two patients (62%) experienced the exact amount of shared decision making that they wanted; 44 (22%) were slightly more involved and 20 (10%) slightly less involved in shared decision making than they desired. Preferences regarding involvement in shared decision making were similar between patients and anaesthetists with mean (SD) points of 54.1 (16.2) vs 56.4 (27.6) (p=0.244), respectively on a 0-100 scale; however, patients were found to have a stronger preference for a totally balanced shared decision-making process (65% vs 32%). Overall patient satisfaction was high: 88% were very satisfied and 12% satisfied with a mean (SD) value of 96.1 (10.6) on a 0-100 scale. Shared decision making is important for providing high levels of patient satisfaction.

Does a postoperative visit increase patient satisfaction with anaesthesia care?

BACKGROUND: 'Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist', as defined by a single anaesthetist providing preoperative evaluation, performing anaesthesia, and delivering a postoperative visit to the patient, has been shown to be a major factor for patient satisfaction with anaesthesia care. This prospective randomized study investigated whether a single postoperative visit increased the patient's perception of 'Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist' and hence satisfaction. METHODS: In Group 1, the same anaesthetist who conducted anaesthesia visited the patient on the first postoperative day. In Group 2, a nurse anaesthetist who did not participate in anaesthesia delivery made a postoperative visit to the patient. Patients in Group 3 were not visited. Patients received a previously validated questionnaire after discharge from hospital. RESULTS: The negative patient response created by the perception of not being visited after operation by the attending anaesthetist was 13.5% (95% CI ± 6.9), 69.2% (95% CI ± 10.3), and 77.1% (95% CI ± 9.1) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with 1 vs 2 and 1 vs 3 (P < 0.001) being significantly different. The negative patient response for 'Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist' was 40.0% (95% CI ± 5.3), 48.8% (95% CI ± 5.6), and 55.5% (95% CI ± 5.3) in Groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively, with 1 vs 3 (P < 0.001) being significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: Perception of the anaesthetist and satisfaction with 'Continuity of personal care by anaesthetist' were significantly increased by the introduction of a single postoperative visit by the anaesthetist compared with no visit at all. Overall satisfaction with anaesthesia was unchanged.

[Videolaryngoscopy versus direct laryngoscopy for elective endotracheal intubation]. / Videolaryngoskopie versus direkte Laryngoskopie zur elektiven endotrachealen Intubation.

BACKGROUND: We compared the ease of viewing the glottis under direct vision during conventional laryngoscopy with the quality of indirectly viewing on a monitor during laryngoscopy with a Macintosh videolaryngoscope in a multicenter study. PATIENTS AND METHODS: After ethical approval and written informed consent of 300 patients with no anticipated difficult airway, conventional laryngoscopy with a Macintosh videolaryngoscopy blade was performed and the quality of the view of the glottis was assessed and documented according to the Cormack and Lehane scoring system as modified by Yentis and Lee. Subsequently, the indirect viewing conditions on the monitor were documented without changing the position of the blade. Differences between both distributions were analyzed using the Bland-Altman Test. RESULTS: Videolaryngoscopy improved the laryngoscopy score by 1 grade in 72 cases, by 2 grades in 17 cases and by 3 grades in 2 cases. A relevant improvement (from grades III/IV to II) was found in 28 patients. Viewing conditions worsened in 3 cases by 1 grade, in 4 cases by 2 grades and in 3 cases by 3 grades. A statistical analysis of the data gave a bias of 0.31 and an SD bias of 0.77.The 95% confidence interval of the distribution ranged from -1.12 to 1.81. CONCLUSION: Videolaryngoscopy can lead to better viewing conditions but in rare cases it may result in worse viewing conditions.

Prophylactic percutaneous transtracheal catheterisation in the management of patients with anticipated difficult airways: a case series.

Primary tracheostomy under local anaesthesia is indicated in the management of an anticipated difficult airway in patients in whom less invasive procedures are expected to fail or have already failed. However, primary tracheostomy is a relatively complex procedure and places not inconsiderable stress on the patient. In a prospective study in our hospital over a period of 22 months, we were able to avoid primary tracheostomy in 11 patients with very difficult airways. All 11 patients were managed with prophylactically inserted transtracheal catheters and jet ventilation of the lungs. This ensured an adequate oxygen supply during tracheal intubation, and made overall patient management much easier. This method has established itself as a standard procedure in our hospital.