A retrospective audit of postoperative days alive and out of hospital, including before and after implementation of the WHO surgical safety checklist.

We implemented the World Health Organization surgical safety checklist at Auckland City Hospital from November 2007. We hypothesised that the checklist would reduce postoperative mortality and increase days alive and out of hospital, both measured to 90 postoperative days. We compared outcomes for cohorts who had surgery during 18-month periods before vs. after checklist implementation. We also analysed outcomes during 9 years that included these periods (July 2004-December 2013). We analysed 9475 patients in the 18-month period before the checklist and 10,589 afterwards. We analysed 57,577 patients who had surgery from 2004 to 2013. Mean number of days alive and out of hospital (95%CI) in the cohort after checklist implementation was 1.0 (0.4-1.6) days longer than in the cohort preceding implementation, p < 0.001. Ninety-day mortality was 395/9475 (4%) and 362/10,589 (3%) in the cohorts before and after checklist implementation, multivariable odds ratio (95%CI) 0.93 (0.80-1.09), p = 0.4. The cohort changes in these outcomes were indistinguishable from longer-term trends in mortality and days alive and out of hospital observed during 9 years, as determined by Bayesian changepoint analysis. Postoperative mortality to 90 days was 228/5686 (4.0%) for Maori and 2047/51,921 (3.9%) for non-Maori, multivariable odds ratio (95%CI) 0.85 (0.73-0.99), p = 0.04. Maori spent on average (95%CI) 1.1 (0.5-1.7) fewer days alive and out of hospital than non-Maori, p < 0.001. In conclusion, our patients experienced improving postoperative outcomes from 2004 to 2013, including the periods before and after implementation of the surgical checklist. Maori patients had worse outcomes than non-Maori.

Ease and comfort of pre-oxygenation with high-flow nasal oxygen cannulae vs. facemask: a randomised controlled trial.

The Difficult Airway Society recommends that all patients should be pre-oxygenated before the induction of general anaesthesia, but this may not always be easy or comfortable and anaesthesia may often be induced without full pre-oxygenation. We tested the hypothesis that high-flow nasal oxygen cannulae would be easier and more comfortable than facemasks for pre-oxygenation. We randomly allocated 199 patients undergoing elective surgery aged ≥ 10 years to pre-oxygenation using either high-flow nasal oxygen or facemask. Ease and comfort were assessed by anaesthetists and patients on 10-cm visual analogue scale and six-point smiley face scale, respectively. Secondary endpoints included end-tidal oxygen fraction after securing a definitive airway and time to secure an airway. A mean difference (95%CI) between groups in ratings of -0.76 (-1.25 to -0.27) cm for ease of use (p = 0.003) and -0.45 (-0.75 to -0.13) points for comfort (p = 0.006), both favoured high-flow nasal oxygen. A mean difference (95%CI) between groups in end-tidal oxygen fraction of 3.89% (2.41-5.37%) after securing a definitive airway also favoured high-flow nasal oxygen (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between groups in the number of patients with hypoxaemia (Sp O2 < 90%) or severe hypoxaemia (Sp O2 < 85%) lasting ≥ 1 min or ≥ 2 min; in the proportion of patients with an end-tidal oxygen fraction < 87% in the first 5 min after tracheal intubation (52.2% vs. 58.9% in facemask and high-flow nasal oxygen groups, respectively; p = 0.31); or in time taken to secure an airway (11.6 vs. 12.2 min in facemask and high-flow nasal oxygen groups, respectively; p = 0.65). In conclusion, we found pre-oxygenation with high-flow nasal oxygen to be easier for anaesthetists and more comfortable for patients than pre-oxygenation with a facemask, with no clinically relevant differences in end-tidal oxygen fraction after securing a definitive airway or time to secure an airway. The differences in ease and comfort were modest.

National risk prediction model for perioperative mortality in non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Many multivariable models to calculate mortality risk after surgery are limited by insufficient sample size at development or by application to cohorts distinct from derivation populations. The aims of this study were to validate the Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) for a New Zealand population and to develop an extended NZRISK model to calculate 1-month, 1-year and 2-year mortality after non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: Data from the New Zealand National Minimum Data Set for patients having surgery between January 2013 and December 2014 were used to validate SORT. A random 75 per cent split of the data was used to develop the NZRISK model, which was validated in the other 25 per cent of the data set. RESULTS: External validation of SORT in the 360 140 patients who underwent surgery in the study period showed good discrimination (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) value of 0·906) but poor calibration (McFadden's pseudo-R2 0·137, calibration slope 5·32), indicating it was invalid in this national surgical population. Internal validation of the NZRISK model, which incorporates sex and ethnicity in addition to the variables used in SORT for 1-month, 1-year and 2-year outcomes, demonstrated excellent discrimination with AUROC values of 0·921, 0·904 and 0·895 respectively, and excellent calibration (McFadden's pseudo-R2 0·275, 0·308 and 0·312 respectively). Calibration slopes were 1·12, 1·02 and 1·02 respectively. CONCLUSION: The SORT performed poorly in this national population. However, inclusion of sex and ethnicity in the NZRISK model improved performance. Calculation of mortality risk beyond 30 days after surgery adds to the utility of this tool for shared decision-making.

ANTECEDENTES: Muchos modelos multivariados de estimación del riesgo de mortalidad después de la cirugía están limitados por haberse desarrollado a partir de tamaños muestrales insuficientes o por haberse aplicados a cohortes distintas de las poblaciones de derivación. Los objetivos de este estudio fueron validar el Surgical Outcome Risk Tool (SORT) para una población de Nueva Zelanda y desarrollar un modelo NZRISK extendido para calcular la mortalidad al mes y a los 1 y 2 años de una cirugía no cardíaca. MÉTODOS: Para validar el SORT se utilizó el Conjunto Mínimo Básico de Datos de Nueva Zelanda para los pacientes sometidos a cirugía entre enero de 2013 y diciembre de 2014. Se realizó una división aleatoria del 75% de los datos para desarrollar el modelo NZRISK que, posteriormente, se validó en el otro 25% del conjunto de datos. RESULTADOS: La validación externa de SORT en 360.140 pacientes intervenidos en el periodo analizado mostró una buena discriminación (área bajo las curvas de característica operativa del receptor (area under the receiver-operator characteristic curves (AUROC) 0,906)) pero con una mala calibración (pseudo-R2 de McFaddens 0,137 y pendiente de calibración 5,32), lo que indicaba que SORT no era válido para esta población quirúrgica nacional. La validación interna del modelo NZRISK, que incorpora el género y la etnia además de las variables utilizadas en el SORT, para los resultados al mes y a los 1 y 2 años demostró una excelente capacidad de discriminación con una AUROC de 0,921, 0,904, 0,895 respectivamente y una calibración excelente, con una pseudo-R2 de McFaddens de 0,275, 0,308 y 0,312 respectivamente. Las pendientes de calibración fueron de 1,12, 1,02 y 1,02, respectivamente. CONCLUSIÓN: El SORT no fue útil en esta población nacional. Sin embargo, la inclusión del género y la etnia en el modelo NZRISK mejoró sus resultados. El cálculo del riesgo de mortalidad más allá de 30 días después de la cirugía añade utilidad a esta herramienta para la toma de decisiones compartida.

Haemodynamic profiles of etomidate vs propofol for induction of anaesthesia: a randomised controlled trial in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Etomidate is frequently selected over propofol for induction of anaesthesia because of a putatively favourable haemodynamic profile, but data confirming this perception are limited. METHODS: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomised to induction of anaesthesia with propofol or etomidate. Phase I (n=75) was conducted as open-label, whereas Phase II (n=75) was double blind. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and boluses of vasopressor administered after induction were recorded. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve below baseline MAP (MAP-time integral) during the 10 min after induction. Secondary endpoints were the use of vasopressors over the same period, and the effect of blinding on the aforementioned endpoints. Groups were compared using regression models with phase and anaesthetist as factors. RESULTS: The mean difference between etomidate and propofol in the MAP-time integral below baseline was 2244 mm Hg s (95% confidence interval, 581-3906; P=0.009), representing a 34% greater reduction with propofol. Overall, vasopressors were used in 10/75 patients in the etomidate group vs 21/75 in the propofol group (P=0.38), and in 20/74 patients during the blinded phase vs 11/76 during the open-label phase (P=0.31). The interaction between randomisation and phase (open-labelled or blinded) was not significant for either primary (P=0.73) or secondary endpoints (P=0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Propofol caused a 34% greater reduction in MAP-time integral from baseline after induction of anaesthesia than etomidate, despite more frequent use of vasopressors with propofol, confirming the superior haemodynamic profile of etomidate in this context. The proportion of patients receiving vasopressors increased slightly, albeit not significantly, in both groups in the blinded phase. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000717651.

Facilitated self-reported anaesthetic medication errors before and after implementation of a safety bundle and barcode-based safety system.

BACKGROUND: Anaesthetic medication administration errors are a significant threat to patient safety. In 2002, we began collecting data about the rate and nature of anaesthetic medication errors and implemented a variety of measures to reduce errors. METHODS: Facilitated self-reporting of errors was carried out in 2002-2003. Subsequently, a medication safety bundle including 'smart' infusion pumps were implemented. During 2014 facilitated self-reporting commenced again. A barcode-based medication safety system was then implemented and the facilitated self-reporting was continued through 2015. RESULTS: During 2002-2003, a total of 11 709 paper forms were returned. There were 73 reports of errors (0.62% of anaesthetics) and 27 reports of intercepted errors (0.23%). During 2014, 14 572 computerised forms were completed. There were 57 reports of errors (0.39%) and 11 reports of intercepted errors (0.075%). Errors associated with medication infusions were reduced in comparison with those recorded in 2002-2003 (P<0.001). The rate of syringe swap error was also reduced (P=0.001). The reduction in error rate between 2002-2003 and 2014 was statistically significant (P=0.0076 and P=0.001 for errors and intercepted errors, respectively). From December 2014 through December 2015, 24 264 computerised forms were completed after implementation of a barcode-based medication safety system. There were 56 reports of errors (0.23%) and six reports of intercepted errors (0.025%). Vial swap errors in 2014-2015 were significantly reduced compared with those in 2014 (P=0.004). The reduction in error rate after implementation of the barcode-based medication safety system was statistically significant (P=0.0045 and P=0.021 for errors and intercepted errors, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Reforms intended to reduce medication errors were associated with substantial improvement.

Exploring performance of, and attitudes to, Stop- and Mock-Before-You-Block in preventing wrong-side blocks.

We conducted an online survey to assess the career experiences of wrong side blocks, the practice of Stop-Before-You-Block, the recently described method of Mock-Before-You-Block and attitudes to these. Respondents were 208 anaesthetists across nine hospitals (173 consultants or Staff and Associate Specialist doctors'), representing 3623 years of collective anaesthetic practice. There had been a total of 62 wrong side blocks (by 51 anaesthetists and one current trainee). Predisposing factors for this were commonly ascribed to distractions (35 (69%), for example due to rushing or teaching), patient positioning (9 (18%)) or miscommunication (6 (12%)). Two (4%) respondents felt they had performed Stop-Before-You-Block too early; 62 (41%) of all respondents stated they performed Stop-Before-You-Block as early as preparing the skin or on arrival of the patient in the anaesthetic room, and not any later. Twenty (10%) respondents admitted to not performing Stop-Before-You-Block at all or only occasionally (including 5 (2%) who had performed a wrong side block). Mock-Before-You-Block was easily understood (by 169 out of 197 (86%)) and 14 out of 61 (23%) respondents felt it would have prevented the wrong side error in their case. However, free-text comments indicated that many anaesthetists were reluctant to use a method that interrupted their performance of the block. We conclude that considerable work is needed to achieve full compliance with Stop-Before-You-Block at the correct time.

Acute alcohol intoxication and bispectral index monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Bispectral index (BIS) monitoring is commonly used to decrease the risk of awareness during anaesthesia. We aimed to determine the relationship between blood alcohol concentration and brain function (as measured by BIS) in healthy adults. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, 21 anaesthetic registrars self-regulated alcohol consumption over a 3-h period. Expired alcohol concentration (breathalyser) and BIS measurements were performed hourly for 4 h. A venous blood alcohol sample was taken at the conclusion of the study period. RESULTS: The main outcome measures were the correlation between blood alcohol and brain function as measured by BIS and the change in BIS from baseline (∆BIS) at 4 h. The median number of standard drinks consumed was 9.1 (IQR 7.7-12.3), range 5.4-17. At 4 h, there was a moderate inverse correlation between BIS and blood alcohol (r = -0.49, P = 0.029) and between ∆BIS and blood alcohol (r = -0.46, P =0.043). CONCLUSION: In healthy young adults, we found a moderate correlation between venous blood alcohol concentration and BIS. This suggests that acute alcohol consumption can decrease BIS. This information may be relevant when providing anaesthesia to intoxicated patients who require urgent or time-critical surgery, although certain limitations of this study should be kept in mind.

Does manual anaesthetic record capture remove clinically important data?

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies have shown smoothing and inaccuracies in handwritten anaesthetic records, but the clinical relevance of these findings is unclear. We therefore sought to determine whether the behaviour of anaesthetists differed in assessing anaesthetic records re-synthesized from either handwritten or automated records. METHODS: In a recent New Zealand study (ACTRN12608000068369), both manual and automated records were acquired from the same anaesthetics. Manual records were digitized using digital callipers. Selected data (systolic, diastolic, and mean arterial pressure; heart rate; Sp(O(2)); E'(CO(2))) were replayed in a computerized anaesthetic record-keeping system with which the participants were familiar, to present manual and corresponding automated anaesthetic records. Ten anaesthetists, randomly selected from participants in this study, assessed 24 replayed records (a manual and an automated record from each of 10 anaesthetics, with two of each displayed twice). They indicated where and how they would have intervened if administering these anaesthetics. We compared the number of interventions for each pair of anaesthetics and subjective measures of anaesthetic quality. RESULTS: In our selected sample of unstable anaesthetics, the mean (SD) number of interventions per anaesthetic was 4.0 (2.9) vs 5.2 (3.4) for manual and automated records, respectively (P=0.013). Subjective measures did not differ significantly between record types. Assessors identified 32 artifacts in six manual records (0.32/record assessment) and 105 artifacts in eight automated records (1.05/record assessment), P=0.14. Replicability was moderate (COV 39.8%). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison with computerized record-keeping, manual record-keeping resulted in loss of clinically relevant information.

Education in airway management.

In airway management, poor judgment, education and training are leading causes of patient morbidity and mortality. The traditional model of medical education, which relies on experiential learning in the clinical environment, is inconsistent and often inadequate. Curriculum change is underway in many medical organisations in an effort to correct these problems, and airway management is likely to be explicitly addressed as a clinical fundamental within any new anaesthetic curriculum. Competency-based medical education with regular assessment of clinical ability is likely to be introduced for all anaesthetists engaged in airway management. Essential clinical competencies need to be defined and improvements in training techniques can be expected based on medical education research. Practitioners need to understand their equipment and diversify their airway skills to cope with a variety of clinical presentations. Expertise stems from deliberate practice and a desire constantly to improve performance with a career-long commitment to education.

Standards for simulation in anaesthesia: creating confidence in the tools.

Simulation is an accepted part of training, assessment, and research in aviation, nuclear power, and the military. Confidence in results in these industries is underpinned by relatively comprehensive and widely accepted standards. In contrast, although there have been major advances in the technology and tools used for simulation in the healthcare industry over the last few decades, little work has been done in setting standards for simulation in healthcare. Standards are essential for achieving the full potential of simulation-based education, assessment, and research at all levels and specialities in healthcare. The absence of standards undermines confidence in the results of any simulation-based endeavour and increases the risk of negative learning. We propose a practical framework for setting standards for simulators for anaesthesia.

Combined acetaminophen and ibuprofen for pain relief after oral surgery in adults: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen is often used with a non-steriodal anti-inflammatory drug for acute pain. Hitherto, these drugs have had to be given separately, typically at different time intervals. Maxigesic tablets combine acetaminophen and ibuprofen in clinically appropriate doses to simplify administration and dosage regimen. We compared this combination with each of the constituent drugs for the relief of pain after extraction of third molar teeth. METHODS: Adults (more than 16 yr) having one or more wisdom teeth removed under general or local anaesthesia were instructed to take two tablets before operation, then two tablets every 6 h for up to 48 h of: (i) a combination of acetaminophen 500 mg and ibuprofen 150 mg per tablet (Maxigesic); (ii) acetaminophen 500 mg per tablet alone; or (iii) ibuprofen 150 mg per tablet alone. The primary outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC) of the 100 mm visual analogue scale pain measurements taken for up to 48 h after surgery, divided by time, at rest and on activity. Pharmacokinetic data were collected in a subset of patients. RESULTS: The mean (sem) time-corrected AUC on rest and activity, respectively, were: combination group 22.3 (3.2) and 28.4 (3.4); acetaminophen group 33.0 (3.1) and 40.4 (3.3); and ibuprofen group 34.8 (3.2) and 40.2 (3.4); P<0.01 for each of the four comparisons of combination vs constituent drug. There was no pharmacokinetic interaction between acetaminophen and ibuprofen administered together. CONCLUSIONS: Maxigesic tablets provide superior pain relief after oral surgery to acetaminophen or ibuprofen alone.

Investigation of trainee and specialist reactions to the mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise in anaesthesia: implications for implementation.

BACKGROUND: The mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (mini-CEX) is a workplace-based assessment which may be useful in anaesthesia training. However, its value depends on how supervisors use it with their trainees. This study analyses experience with the mini-CEX after its introduction into anaesthesia departments in our institution. METHODS: We conducted surveys, focus groups, and interviews with trainees and specialists. Data were recorded, transcribed, and entered into NVivo 8. Themes were identified and data coded into these themes. RESULTS: We identified six themes: assessor factors included skills needed to perform the assessments, influences on scoring decisions, and effects on the specialist-trainee relationship; trainee factors related to impact on trainee performance and value at the different training levels; teaching and learning included the effect of focused observation on structuring workplace learning; feedback described how the mini-CEX changed feedback and what was considered useful; mini-CEX process included implementation, initiation of assessments and case selection; and use in assessment included comparisons with existing assessments and the ability to identify poor performers. CONCLUSIONS: Mini-CEX formalized the supervisory relationship, promoting educational interactions. During the observation period, trainees took responsibility for decisions, and specialists learnt more about their abilities. The structured format broadened the scope of feedback and made it easier to address performance gaps. We identified factors that facilitated or hindered implementation, or limited effective feedback and the ability to address poor performance. From this analysis, we propose strategies for the implementation of mini-CEX, and recommendations for assessor training to improve the quality and value of the assessments.

Mini-clinical evaluation exercise in anaesthesia training.

BACKGROUND: The Mini-Clinical Evaluation Exercise (Mini-CEX) is a workplace-based assessment tool of potential value in anaesthesia to assess and improve clinical performance. Its reliability and positive educational impact have been reported in other specialities, but not, to date, in anaesthesia. In this study, we evaluated the psychometric characteristics, logistics of application, and impact on the quality of supervision of the Mini-CEX in anaesthesia training. METHODS: A Mini-CEX encounter consisted of a single specialist anaesthetist observing a trainee over a defined period of time, completing an online Mini-CEX form with the trainee, and providing written and verbal feedback. We sought trainee and supervisor perspectives on its value and ease of use and used Generalizability Theory to estimate reliability. RESULTS: We collected 331 assessments from 61 trainees and 58 assessors. Survey responses strongly supported the positive effect of the Mini-CEX on feedback, its relative feasibility, and acceptance as a potential assessment tool. In this cohort, we found variable assessor stringency and low trainee variation. However, a feasible sample of cases and assessors would produce sufficiently precise scores to decide that performance was satisfactory for each trainee with 95% confidence. To generate scores that could discriminate sufficiently between trainees to allow ranking, a much larger sample of cases would be needed. CONCLUSIONS: The Mini-CEX in anaesthesia has strengths and weaknesses. Strengths include: its perceived very positive educational impact and its relative feasibility. Variable assessor stringency means that large numbers of assessors are required to produce reliable scores.

The impact of trained assistance on error rates in anaesthesia: a simulation-based randomised controlled trial.

Trained assistance for the anaesthetist appears likely to improve safety in anaesthesia. However, there are few objective data to support this assumption, and the requirement for a trained assistant is not universally enforced. We applied a simulation-based model developed in previous work to test the hypothesis that the presence of a trained assistant reduces error in anaesthesia. Ten randomly selected anaesthetists, five trained anaesthetic technicians and five theatre nurses without training in anaesthesia participated in two simulated emergencies, with anaesthetists working alternately with a technician or a nurse. The mean (SD) error rate per scenario was 4.75 (2.9). There were significantly fewer errors in the technician group than the nurse group (33 vs 62, p = 0.01) and this difference remained significant when errors were weighted for severity. This provides objective evidence supporting the requirement for trained assistance to the anaesthetist, and furthermore, demonstrates that a simulation-based model can provide rigorous evidence on safety interventions in anaesthesia.

The influence of various graphical and numeric trend display formats on the detection of simulated changes.

Integration of a large amount of information is important in anaesthesia but there is little research to guide the development of data displays. Anaesthetists from two hospitals participated in five related screen based simulation studies comparing various formats for display of historical or 'trend' data. Participants were asked to indicate when they first noticed a change in each displayed variable. Accuracy and latency (i.e. delay) in detection of changes were recorded. Latency was shorter with a graphic display of historical data than with a numeric display. Increasing number of variables or reduction of y-axis height increased the latency of detection. If the same number of data points were included, there was no difference between graphical and numerical displays of historical data. There was no difference in accuracy between graphical or numerical displays. These results suggest that the way trend data is presented can influence the speed of detection of changes.

Global oximetry: an international anaesthesia quality improvement project.

Pulse oximetry is mandatory during anaesthesia in many countries, a standard endorsed by the World Health Organization 'Safe Surgery Saves Lives' initiative. The Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists and GE Healthcare collaborated in a quality improvement project over a 15-month period to investigate pulse oximetry in four pilot sites in Uganda, Vietnam, India and the Philippines, using 84 donated pulse oximeters. A substantial gap in oximeter provision was demonstrated at the start of the project. Formal training was essential for oximeter-naïve practitioners. After introduction of oximeters, logbook data were collected from over 8000 anaesthetics, and responses to desaturation were judged appropriate. Anaesthesia providers believed pulse oximeters were essential for patient safety and defined characteristics of the ideal oximeter for their setting. Robust systems for supply and maintenance of low-cost oximeters are required for sustained uptake of pulse oximetry in low- and middle-income countries.