A Process-Based Standardization of an Intraoperative Escalation Protocol in Anesthesiology.

Prompt recognition and management of critical events is pivotal for the provision of safe anesthetic care. This requires a well-functioning team that focuses on effective communication, timely decision-making, and escalation of potential complications. We believe that variation in bedside care leads to "near-misses," adverse outcomes, and serious safety events (SSEs). The principles of an escalation culture have been used successfully in other highly reliable industries such as aviation, military, and manufacturing. We discuss here the introduction of a unique and compelling thought-process for developing an intraoperative escalation protocol that is specifically tailored for our institution. Inspired by a critical intraoperative event, this departmental protocol was developed based on an analysis of multispecialty literature and expert opinion to decrease the incidence of SSEs. It includes a stepwise approach and incorporates patient-specific information to guide team members who encounter dynamic clinical situations. The implementation of the protocol has facilitated continuous quality improvement through iterative education, improving communication, and enhancing decision-making. Concurrently, we have plans to incorporate technology and electronic decision support tools to enhance real-time communication, monitor performance, and foster a culture of safety.

Assessing the fragility index of randomized controlled trials supporting perioperative care guidelines: A methodological survey protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The Fragility Index (FI) and the FI family are statistical tools that measure the robustness of randomized controlled trials (RCT) by examining how many patients would need a different outcome to change the statistical significance of the main results of a trial. These tools have recently gained popularity in assessing the robustness or fragility of clinical trials in many clinical areas and analyzing the strength of the trial outcomes underpinning guideline recommendations. However, it has not been applied to perioperative care Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPG). OBJECTIVES: This study aims to survey clinical practice guidelines in anesthesiology to determine the Fragility Index of RCTs supporting the recommendations, and to explore trial characteristics associated with fragility. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A methodological survey will be conducted using the targeted population of RCT referenced in the recommendations of the CPG of the North American and European societies from 2012 to 2022. FI will be assessed for statistically significant and non-significant trial results. A Poisson regression analysis will be used to explore factors associated with fragility. DISCUSSION: This methodological survey aims to estimate the Fragility Index of RCTs supporting perioperative care guidelines published by North American and European societies of anesthesiology between 2012 and 2022. The results of this study will inform the methodological quality of RCTs included in perioperative care guidelines and identify areas for improvement.

Comparing ChatGPT and a Single Anesthesiologist's Responses to Common Patient Questions: An Exploratory Cross-Sectional Survey of a Panel of Anesthesiologists.

Increased patient access to electronic medical records and resources has resulted in higher volumes of health-related questions posed to clinical staff, while physicians' rising clinical workloads have resulted in less time for comprehensive, thoughtful responses to patient questions. Artificial intelligence chatbots powered by large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT could help anesthesiologists efficiently respond to electronic patient inquiries, but their ability to do so is unclear. A cross-sectional exploratory survey-based study comprised of 100 anesthesia-related patient question/response sets based on two fictitious simple clinical scenarios was performed. Each question was answered by an independent board-certified anesthesiologist and ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 model, August 3, 2023 version). The responses were randomized and evaluated via survey by three blinded board-certified anesthesiologists for various quality and empathy measures. On a 5-point Likert scale, ChatGPT received similar overall quality ratings (4.2 vs. 4.1, p = .81) and significantly higher overall empathy ratings (3.7 vs. 3.4, p < .01) compared to the anesthesiologist. ChatGPT underperformed the anesthesiologist regarding rate of responses in agreement with scientific consensus (96.6% vs. 99.3%, p = .02) and possibility of harm (4.7% vs. 1.7%, p = .04), but performed similarly in other measures (percentage of responses with inappropriate/incorrect information (5.7% vs. 2.7%, p = .07) and missing information (10.0% vs. 7.0%, p = .19)). In conclusion, LLMs show great potential in healthcare, but additional improvement is needed to decrease the risk of patient harm and reduce the need for close physician oversight. Further research with more complex clinical scenarios, clinicians, and live patients is necessary to validate their role in healthcare.

Comparison of societal guidance on perioperative management of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists: implications for clinical practice and future investigations.

PURPOSE: The use of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists (RAs) by patients undergoing surgery and procedures requiring anesthesia has become a topic of significant concern for perioperative providers because of the potential increased risk of aspiration resulting from the medication's effect of delaying gastric emptying. There is currently a lack of high-quality data regarding the safety of GLP-1 RAs in patients undergoing surgery, which has led to variations in practice. SOURCE: We performed an internet search of society-endorsed statements and guidelines related to perioperative management of GLP-1 RAs, focusing on the top 20 countries with the largest anesthesiology societies determined by membership data from the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists. We excluded articles and websites that were not in English. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our search revealed endorsed statements from fourteen major anesthesiology, endocrinology, and gastroenterology societies. There was considerable variation between societies in the recommendations and guidance for withholding these medications before surgery, the duration of withholding, assessment of the need for avoiding deep sedation or general anesthesia, use of rapid sequence intubation, need for prolonged fasting periods and clear fluid before a nil per os period, recognition of signs and symptoms for aspiration risk, the management of glucose in the perioperative period, and the use of point-of-care ultrasound for risk assessment. CONCLUSION: Society-endorsed statements and guidelines provide varying recommendations on the perioperative management of GLP-1 RAs. The insights gained from this comparative analysis may help guide clinical practice, develop institutional practice guidelines, and direct future research efforts.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'utilisation d'agonistes des récepteurs (AR) du peptide-1 de type glucagon (GLP-1) par les personnes bénéficiant d'une intervention chirurgicale et de procédures nécessitant une anesthésie est devenue un sujet de préoccupation important pour les prestataires de soins périopératoires en raison de l'augmentation du risque potentiel d'aspiration résultant de l'effet du médicament, qui provoque un retard de la vidange gastrique. Il existe actuellement un manque de données de haute qualité concernant l'innocuité des AR GLP-1 chez les patient·es bénéficiant d'une intervention chirurgicale, ce qui a mené à des variations dans la pratique. SOURCES: Nous avons réalisé une recherche sur Internet des déclarations et lignes directrices approuvées par les sociétés médicales concernant la prise en charge périopératoire des AR GLP-1, en nous concentrant sur les 20 pays comptant les plus grandes sociétés d'anesthésiologie, déterminées par les données sur les membres de la Fédération mondiale des sociétés d'anesthésiologistes. Nous avons exclu les articles et les sites Web qui n'étaient pas en anglais. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Nos recherches ont révélé des déclarations approuvées par quatorze grandes sociétés d'anesthésiologie, d'endocrinologie et de gastro-entérologie. Il y avait des variations considérables entre les sociétés en matière de recommandations et de directives concernant l'abstention de ces médicaments avant la chirurgie, la durée de l'abstention, l'évaluation de la nécessité d'éviter la sédation profonde ou l'anesthésie générale, l'utilisation de l'intubation en séquence rapide, la nécessité de périodes de jeûne prolongées et de liquides clairs avant une période nil per os, la reconnaissance des signes et symptômes du risque d'aspiration, la prise en charge de la glycémie pendant la période périopératoire et l'utilisation de l'échographie ciblée pour l'évaluation des risques. CONCLUSION: Les déclarations et les lignes directrices approuvées par les sociétés médicales fournissent des recommandations variées sur la prise en charge périopératoire des AR GLP-1. Les connaissances acquises grâce à cette analyse comparative pourraient aider à orienter la pratique clinique, à élaborer des lignes directrices de pratique institutionnelles et à guider les efforts de recherche futurs.

[Airway management in neonates and infants : Recommendations according to the ESAIC/BJA guidelines]. / Atemwegssicherung bei Neugeborenen und Säuglingen : Handlungsempfehlung gemäß der BJA/ESAIC-Leitlinie.

Securing an airway enables the oxygenation and ventilation of the lungs and is a potentially life-saving medical procedure. Adverse and critical events are common during airway management, particularly in neonates and infants. The multifactorial reasons for this include patient-dependent, user-dependent and also external factors. The recently published joint ESAIC/BJA international guidelines on airway management in neonates and infants are summarized with a focus on the clinical application. The original publication of the guidelines focussed on naming formal recommendations based on systematically documented evidence, whereas this summary focusses particularly on the practicability of their implementation.

The impact of hindsight bias on the diagnosis of perioperative events by anesthesia providers: A multicenter randomized crossover study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Hindsight bias is the tendency to overestimate the predictability of an event after it has already occurred. We aimed to evaluate whether hindsight bias influences the retrospective interpretation of clinical scenarios in the field of anesthesiology, which relies on clinicians making rapid decisions in the setting of perioperative adverse events. DESIGN: Two clinical scenarios were developed (intraoperative hypotension and intraoperative hypoxia) with 3 potential diagnoses for each. Participants completed a crossover study reviewing one case without being informed of the supposed ultimate diagnosis (i.e., no 'anchor' diagnosis), referred to as their foresight case, and the other as a hindsight case wherein they were informed in the leading sentence of the scenario that 1 of the 3 conditions provided was the ultimate diagnosis (i.e., the diagnosis the participant might 'anchor' to if given this information at the start). Participants were randomly assigned to (1) which scenario (hypotension or hypoxia) was presented as the initial foresight case and (2) which of the 3 potential diagnoses for the second case (the hindsight case, which defaulted to whichever case the participant was not assigned for the first case) was presented as the ultimate diagnosis in the leading sentence in a 2 (scenario order) x 3 (hindsight case anchor) between-subjects factorial design (6 possible randomization assignments). SETTING: Two academic medical centers. PARTICIPANTS: Faculty, fellow, and resident anesthesiologists and certified nurse anesthetists (CRNAs). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: After reading each clinical scenario, participants were asked to rate the probability (%) of each of three potential diagnoses to have caused the hypotension or hypoxia. Compositional data analysis (CoDA) was used to compare whether diagnosis probabilities differ between the hindsight and the foresight case. MAIN RESULTS: 113 participants completed the study. 59 participants (52%) were resident anesthesiologists. Participants randomized to the hypotension scenario as a hindsight case were 2.82 times more likely to assign higher probability to the pulmonary embolus diagnosis if provided as an anchor (95% CI, 1.35-5.90; P = 0.006) and twice as likely to assign higher probability to the myocardial infarction diagnosis if provided as an anchor (95% CI, 1.12-3.58; P = 0.020). Participants randomized to the hypoxia scenario as a hindsight case were 1.78 times more likely to assign higher probability to the mainstem bronchus intubation diagnosis if provided in the anchor statement (95% CI, 1.00-3.14; P = 0.048) and 3.72 times more likely to assign higher probability to the pulmonary edema diagnosis if provided as an anchor (95% CI, 1.88-7.35; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Hindsight bias influences the clinical diagnosis probabilities assigned by anesthesia providers. Clinicians should be educated on hindsight bias in perioperative medicine and be cognizant of the effect of hindsight bias when interpreting clinical outcomes.

Quality Improvement in an Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Unit Through Pain Assessment and Control.

The aim of the study is to determine whether the assessment of postoperative pain and timely measures to control it improve the quality of medical care in intensive care units (ICUs). To develop an improvement model with a focus on pain assessment and control. 151 patients were included in the study, divided into two groups: a retrospective group (RG)-60 patients and a prospective group (PG)-91 patients. A multimodal approach to pain control was applied to all patients. We administered the Critical Care Pain Observational Tool (CPOT) to PG upon admission to the ICU. Visual analog scale (VAS) for pain assessment was used in all non intubated patients in 6 hours intervals. In the PG, а model for improvement was applied using a PDSA (Plan, Do, Study/ Check, Act) cycle. The following indicators have been used: process, outcome, and balancing indicators. A survey of the PG was also conducted. The developed Model of improvement increased the VAS score reporting success rate from 40 to 95%, which allowed significantly better pain control. In PG the registered CPOT score was 1.71 ± 0.73. 90% of patients in PG have an average VAS score below 5 after the improvement model, while in RG-50% of patients, which is statistically significant (P < 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in balancing indicators between the two groups. Conclusion: The conducted survey confirmed the positive effect of the model. Quality improvement in the ICU depends on accurate assessment of postoperative pain and timely and adequate treatment.

The way towards ethical anesthesia care: no aim - no game - no fame or blame?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores the intricacies of ethical anesthesia, exploring the necessity for precision anesthesia and its impact on patient-reported outcomes. The primary objective is to advocate for a defined aim, promoting the implementation of rules and feedback systems. The ultimate goal is to enhance precision anesthesia care, ensuring patient safety through the implementation of a teamwork and the integration of feedback mechanisms. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent strategies in the field of anesthesia have evolved from intraoperative monitorization to a wider perioperative patient-centered precision care. Nonetheless, implementing this approach encounters significant obstacles. The article explores the evidence supporting the need for a defined aim and applicable rules for precision anesthesia's effectiveness. The implementation of the safety culture is underlined. The review delves into the teamwork description with structured feedback systems. SUMMARY: Anesthesia is a multifaceted discipline that involves various stakeholders. The primary focus is delivering personalized precision care. This review underscores the importance of establishing clear aims, defined rules, and fostering effective and well tolerated teamwork with accurate feedback for improving patient-reported outcomes. The Safe Brain Initiative approach, emphasizing algorithmic monitoring and systematic follow-up, is crucial in implementing a fundamental and standardized reporting approach within patient-centered anesthesia care practice.

The Accuracy of the Learning-Curve Cumulative Sum Method in Assessing Brachial Plexus Block Competency.

BACKGROUND: The learning-curve cumulative sum method (LC-CUSUM) and its risk-adjusted form (RA-LC-CUSUM) have been proposed as performance-monitoring methods to assess competency during the learning phase of procedural skills. However, scarce data exist about the method's accuracy. This study aimed to compare the accuracy of LC-CUSUM forms using historical data consisting of sequences of successes and failures in brachial plexus blocks (BPBs) performed by anesthesia residents. METHODS: Using historical data from 1713 BPB performed by 32 anesthesia residents, individual learning curves were constructed using the LC-CUSUM and RA-LC-CUSUM methods. A multilevel logistic regression model predicted the procedure-specific risk of failure incorporated in the RA-LC-CUSUM calculations. Competency was defined as a maximum 15% cumulative failure rate and was used as the reference for determining the accuracy of both methods. RESULTS: According to the LC-CUSUM method, 22 residents (84.61%) attained competency after a median of 18.5 blocks (interquartile range [IQR], 14-23), while the RA-LC-CUSUM assigned competency to 20 residents (76.92%) after a median of 17.5 blocks (IQR, 14-25, P = .001). The median failure rate at reaching competency was 6.5% (4%-9.75%) under the LC-CUSUM and 6.5% (4%-9%) for the RA-LC-CUSUM method ( P = .37). The sensitivity of the LC-CUSUM (85%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 71%-98%) was similar to the RA-LC-CUSUM method (77%; 95% CI, 61%-93%; P = .15). Identical specificity values were found for both methods (67%; 95% CI, 29%-100%, P = 1). CONCLUSIONS: The LC-CUSUM and RA-LC-CUSUM methods were associated with substantial false-positive and false-negative rates. Also, small lower limits for the 95% CIs around the accuracy measures were observed, indicating that the methods may be inaccurate for high-stakes decisions about resident competency at BPBs.

What are standard monitoring devices for anesthesia in future?

Monitoring the patient's physiological functions is critical in clinical anesthesia. The latest version of the Japanese Society of Anesthesiologists' Guidelines for Safe Anesthesia Monitoring, revised in 2019, covers various factors, including electroencephalogram monitoring, oxygenation, ventilation, circulation, and muscle relaxation. However, with recent advances in monitoring technologies, the information provided has become more detailed, requiring practitioners to update their knowledge. At a symposium organized by the Journal of Anesthesia in 2023, experts across five fields discussed their respective topics: anesthesiologists need to interpret not only the values displayed on processed electroencephalogram monitors but also raw electroencephalogram data in the foreseeable future. In addition to the traditional concern of preventing hypoxemia, monitoring for potential hyperoxemia and the effects of mechanical ventilation itself will become increasingly important. The importance of using AI analytics to predict hypotension, assess nociception, and evaluate microcirculation may increase. With the recent increase in the availability of neuromuscular monitoring devices in Japan, it is important for anesthesiologists to become thoroughly familiar with the features of each device to ensure its effective use. There is a growing desire to develop and introduce a well-organized, integrated "single screen" monitor.