Differences in safety climate among hospital anesthesia departments and the effect of a realistic simulation-based training program.

BACKGROUND: Safety climate is often measured via surveys to identify appropriate patient safety interventions. The introduction of an insurance premium incentive for simulation-based anesthesia crisis resource management (CRM) training motivated our naturalistic experiment to compare the safety climates of several departments and to assess the impact of the training. METHODS: We administered a 59-item survey to anesthesia providers in six academic anesthesia programs (Phase 1). Faculty in four of the programs subsequently participated in a CRM program using simulation. The survey was readministered 3 yr later (Phase 2). Factor analysis was used to create scales regarding common safety themes. Positive safety climate (% of respondents with positive safety attitudes) was computed for the scales to indicate the safety climate levels. RESULTS: The usable response rate was 44% (309/708) and 38% (293/772) in Phases 1 and 2 respectively. There was wide variation in response rates among hospitals and providers. Eight scales were identified. There were significantly different climate scores among hospitals but no difference between the trained and untrained cohorts. The positive safety climate scores varied from 6% to 94% on specific survey questions. Faculty and residents had significantly different perceptions of the degree to which residents are debriefed about their difficult clinical situations. CONCLUSIONS: Safety climate indicators can vary substantially among anesthesia practice groups. Scale scores and responses to specific questions can suggest practices for improvement. Overall safety climate is probably not a good criterion for assessing the impact of simulation-based CRM training. Training alone was insufficient to alter engrained behaviors in the absence of further reinforcing actions.

Droperidol: should the black box be light gray?

In December 2001, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) added a "black box" warning to the labeling for droperidol stating that all doses, even those typically used for postoperative nausea and vomiting, were potentially associated with malignant ventricular dysrhythmias, including torsade de pointes. The 19 cases in which droperidol doses less than 10 mg were allegedly associated with such dysrhythmias are reviewed in detail. Confounding issues present in a majority of the cases make it difficult to incriminate droperidol as the likely cause of the reported adverse events.

Postoperative nausea and vomiting after total intravenous anesthesia with propofol and remifentanil or alfentanil: how important is the opioid?

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To compare the frequency and duration of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) with propofol and either remifentanil or alfentanil in outpatients undergoing arthroscopic surgery of the extremities. DESIGN: Randomized, third-party blinded study. SETTING: University medical center. PATIENTS: 100 ASA physical status I and II patients scheduled for arthroscopic surgery of the knee or shoulder. INTERVENTIONS: The anesthesia regimen consisted of a bolus followed by continuous infusion of propofol (2 mg/kg followed by 120 microg/kg/min) and the opioid (remifentanil 0.5 microg/kg followed by 0.1 microg/kg/min or alfentanil 10 microg/kg followed by 0.25 microg/kg/min). Patients breathed 100% oxygen spontaneously through a Laryngeal Mask Airway (or an endotracheal tube when medically indicated). Opioids were titrated to maintain blood pressure and heart rate within 20% of baseline and a respiratory rate of 10 to 16 breaths/min. Propofol was titrated downward as low as possible without permitting patient movement. MEASUREMENTS: Nausea was determined by an 11-point categorical scale and was recorded before surgery and multiple time points thereafter. The times of emetic episodes were recorded. Treatment of PONV was at the discretion of the postanesthesia care unit (PACU) nurses who were blinded to the identity of the opioid used. MAIN RESULTS: Nausea scores were 0 at all time points in over 70% of the patients in each group. None of the 100 patients vomited while in the hospital, and only one patient required antiemetic therapy. CONCLUSION: When propofol-based TIVA is used for arthroscopic surgery, short-acting opioids do not significantly affect the risk of PONV.