Sustainability in healthcare: patient and public perspectives.

The sustainable healthcare agenda has become increasingly prominent in recent years. But what does this mean for patients? In this article, we draw on our personal views and experiences as patients, carers and patient advocates, and consider the effects that efforts to improve the sustainability of healthcare may have on care quality and patient experience. We also review the small amount of existing research and policy in this area, with particular focus on documents from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the Health Foundation. Based on synthesising these resources with our own experiences, we make recommendations on how to: share information with patients about how they can contribute to healthcare sustainability; offer more sustainable alternatives without pressure; account for diverse patient views on the relevance of sustainable healthcare; provide information about the impact of healthcare on the environment; involve patients and the public in leading positive change; and avoid broadening health inequalities. There is a clear need for more research and engagement to help advance our understanding and weigh up the benefits to individual patients vs. the environmental impacts on the wider population.

Specialist perioperative allergy clinic services in the UK 2018: Results from the Royal College of Anaesthetists Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6) investigation of perioperative anaphylaxis.

BACKGROUND: The Royal College of Anaesthetists 6th National Audit Project examined Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis for 1 year in the UK. OBJECTIVE: To describe the causes and investigation of anaphylaxis in the NAP6 cohort, in relation to published guidance and previous baseline survey results. METHODS: We used a secure registry to gather details of Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis. Anonymous reports were aggregated for analysis and reviewed in detail. Panel consensus diagnosis, reaction grade, review of investigations and clinic assessment are reported and compared to the prior NAP6 baseline clinic survey. RESULTS: A total of 266 cases met inclusion criteria between November 2015 and 2016, detailing reactions and investigations. One hundred and ninety-two of 266 (72%) had anaphylaxis with a trigger identified, of which 140/192 (75%) met NAP6 criteria for IgE-mediated allergic anaphylaxis, 13% lacking evidence of positive IgE tests were labelled "non-allergic anaphylaxis". 3% were non-IgE-mediated anaphylaxis. Adherence to guidance was similar to the baseline survey for waiting time for clinic assessment. However, lack of testing for chlorhexidine and latex, non-harmonized testing practices and poor coverage of all possible culprits was confirmed. Challenge testing may be underused and many have unacceptably delayed assessments, even in urgent cases. Communication or information provision for patients was insufficient, especially for avoidance advice and communication of test results. Insufficient detail regarding skin test methods was available to draw conclusions regarding techniques. CONCLUSION AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Current clinical assessment in the UK is effective but harmonization of approach to testing, access to services and MHRA reporting is needed. Expert anaesthetist involvement should increase to optimize diagnostic yield and advice for future anaesthesia. Dynamic tryptase evaluation improves detection of tryptase release where peak tryptase is <14 µg/L and should be adopted. Standardized clinic reports containing appropriate details of tests, conclusions, avoidance, cross-reactivity and suitable alternatives are required to ensure effective, safe future management options.

Anaesthesia, surgery, and life-threatening allergic reactions: epidemiology and clinical features of perioperative anaphylaxis in the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6).

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. METHODS: The 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) on perioperative anaphylaxis collected and reviewed 266 reports of Grades 3-5 anaphylaxis over 1 yr from all NHS hospitals in the UK. RESULTS: The estimated incidence was ≈1:10 000 anaesthetics. Case exclusion because of reporting delays or incomplete data means true incidence might be ≈70% higher. The distribution of 199 identified culprit agents included antibiotics (94), neuromuscular blocking agents (65), chlorhexidine (18), and Patent Blue dye (9). Teicoplanin comprised 12% of antibiotic exposures, but caused 38% of antibiotic-induced anaphylaxis. Eighteen patients reacted to an antibiotic test dose. Succinylcholine-induced anaphylaxis, mainly presenting with bronchospasm, was two-fold more likely than other neuromuscular blocking agents. Atracurium-induced anaphylaxis mainly presented with hypotension. Non-depolarising neuromuscular blocking agents had similar incidences to each other. There were no reports of local anaesthetic or latex-induced anaphylaxis. The commonest presenting features were hypotension (46%), bronchospasm (18%), tachycardia (9.8%), oxygen desaturation (4.7%), bradycardia (3%), and reduced/absent capnography trace (2.3%). All patients were hypotensive during the episode. Onset was rapid for neuromuscular blocking agents and antibiotics, but delayed with chlorhexidine and Patent Blue dye. There were 10 deaths and 40 cardiac arrests. Pulseless electrical activity was the usual type of cardiac arrest, often with bradycardia. Poor outcomes were associated with increased ASA, obesity, beta blocker, and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor medication. Seventy per cent of cases were reported to the hospital incident reporting system, and only 24% to Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency via the Yellow Card Scheme. CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of perioperative anaphylaxis was estimated to be 1 in 10 000 anaesthetics.

Cross-sectional study of perioperative drug and allergen exposure in UK practice in 2016: the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) Allergen Survey.

BACKGROUND: Details of the current UK drug and allergen exposure were needed for interpretation of reports of perioperative anaphylaxis to the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6). METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional survey of 356 NHS hospitals determining anaesthetic drug usage in October 2016. All cases cared for by an anaesthetist were included. RESULTS: Responses were received from 342 (96%) hospitals. Within-hospital return rates were 96%. We collected 15 942 forms, equating to an annual caseload of 3.1 million, including 2.4 million general anaesthetics. Propofol was used in 74% of all cases and 90% of general anaesthetics. Maintenance included a volatile agent in 95% and propofol in 8.7%. Neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 47% of general anaesthetics. Analgesics were used in 88% of cases: opioids, 82%; paracetamol, 56%; and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, 28%. Antibiotics were administered in 57% of cases, including 2.5 million annual perioperative administrations; gentamicin, co-amoxiclav, and cefuroxime were most commonly used. Local anaesthetics were used in 74% cases and 70% of general anaesthetics. Anti-emetics were used in 73% of cases: during general anaesthesia, ondansetron in 78% and dexamethasone in 60%. Blood products were used in ≈3% of cases, gelatin <2%, starch very rarely, and tranexamic acid in ≈6%. Chlorhexidine and povidone-iodine exposures were 74% and 40% of cases, and 21% reported a latex-free environment. Exposures to bone cement, blue dyes, and radiographic contrast dye were each reported in 2-3% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides insights into allergen exposures in perioperative care, which is important as denominator data for the NAP6 registry.

Anaesthesia, surgery, and life-threatening allergic reactions: management and outcomes in the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6).

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. There is little published information on management and outcomes of perioperative anaphylaxis in the UK. METHODS: The 6th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (NAP6) collected and reviewed 266 reports of Grade 3-5 anaphylaxis from all UK NHS hospitals over 1 yr. Quality of management was assessed against published guidelines. RESULTS: Appropriately senior anaesthetists resuscitated all patients. Immediate management was 'good' in 46% and 'poor' in 15%. Recognition and treatment of anaphylaxis were prompt in 97% and 83% of cases, respectively. Epinephrine was administered i.v. in 76%, i.m. in 14%, both in 6%, and not at all in 11% of cases. A catecholamine infusion was administered in half of cases. Cardiac arrests (40 cases; 15%) were promptly treated but cardiac compressions were omitted in half of patients with unrecordable BP. The surgical procedure was abandoned in most cases, including 10% where surgery was urgent. Of 54% admitted to critical care, 70% were level 3, with most requiring catecholamine infusions. Ten (3.8%) patents (mostly elderly with cardiovascular disease) died from anaphylaxis. Corticosteroids and antihistamines were generally administered early. We found no clear evidence of harm or benefit from chlorphenamine. Two patients received vasopressin and one glucagon. Fluid administration was inadequate in 19% of cases. Treatment included sugammadex in 19 cases, including one when rocuronium had not been administered. Adverse sequelae (psychological, cognitive, or physical) were reported in one-third of cases. CONCLUSIONS: Management of perioperative anaphylaxis could be improved, especially with respect to administration of epinephrine, cardiac compressions, and i.v. fluid. Sequelae were common.

An observational national study of anaesthetic workload and seniority across the working week and weekend in the UK in 2016: the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) Activity Survey.

BACKGROUND: UK national anaesthetic activity was studied in 2013 but weekend working was not examined. Understanding changes since 2013 in workload and manpower distribution, including weekends, would be of value in workforce planning. METHODS: We performed an observational survey of NHS hospitals' anaesthetic practice in October 2016 as part of the 6th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists (NAP6). All cases cared for by an anaesthetist during the study period were included. Patient characteristics and details of anaesthetic conduct were collected by local anaesthetists. RESULTS: Responses were received from 342/356 (96%) hospitals. In total, 15 942 cases were reported, equating to an annual anaesthetic workload of ≈3.13 million cases. Approximately 95% (9888/10 452) of elective and 72% (3184/4392) of emergency work was performed on weekdays and 89% (14 145/15 942) of activity was led by senior (consultant or career grade) anaesthetists and 1.1% (180/15942) by those with <2 yr anaesthetic experience. During weekends case urgency increased, the proportion of healthy patients reduced and case mix changed. Cases led by senior anaesthetists fell to 80% (947/1177) on Saturday and 66% (342/791) on Sunday. Senior involvement in obstetric anaesthetic activity was 69% (628/911) during the week and 45% (182/402) at weekends, compared with 93% (791/847) in emergency orthopaedic procedures during the week and 89% (285/321) at weekends. Since 2013, the proportion of obese patients, elective weekend working, and depth of anaesthesia monitoring has increased [12% (1464/12 213) vs 2.8%], but neuromuscular monitoring has not [37% (2032/5532) vs 38% of paralysed cases]. CONCLUSIONS: Senior clinicians deliver most UK anaesthesia care, including at weekends. Our findings are important for any planned workforce reorganisation to rationalise 7-day working.

Anaesthesia, surgery, and life-threatening allergic reactions: protocol and methods of the 6th National Audit Project (NAP6) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a serious complication for patients and anaesthetists. METHODS: The Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists examined the incidence, predisposing factors, management, and impact of life-threatening perioperative anaphylaxis in the UK. NAP6 included: a national survey of anaesthetists' experiences and perceptions; a national survey of allergy clinics; a registry collecting detailed reports of all Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis cases for 1 yr; and a national survey of anaesthetic workload and perioperative allergen exposure. NHS and independent sector (IS) hospitals were approached to participate. Cases were reviewed by a multi-disciplinary expert panel (anaesthetists, intensivists, allergists, immunologists, patient representatives, and stakeholders) using a structured process designed to minimise bias. Clinical management and investigation were compared with published guidelines. This paper describes detailed study methods and reports on project engagement by NHS and IS hospitals. The methodology includes a new classification of perioperative anaphylaxis and a new structured method for classifying suspected anaphylactic events including the degree of certainty with which a causal trigger agent can be attributed. RESULTS: NHS engagement was complete (100% of hospitals). Independent sector engagement was limited (13% of approached hospitals). We received >500 reports of Grade 3-5 perioperative anaphylaxis, with 266 suitable for analysis. We identified 199 definite or probable culprit agents in 192 cases. CONCLUSIONS: The methods of NAP6 were robust in identifying causative agents of anaphylaxis, and support the accompanying analytical papers.

Specialist perioperative allergy clinic services in the UK 2016: Results from the Royal College of Anaesthetists Sixth National Audit Project.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for investigation of perioperative drug allergy exist, but the quality of services is unknown. Specialist perioperative anaphylaxis services were surveyed through the Royal College of Anaesthetists 6th National Audit Project. OBJECTIVES: We compare self-declared UK practice in specialist perioperative allergy services with national recommendations. METHODS: A SurveyMonkey™ questionnaire was distributed to providers of allergy services in the UK. Responses were assessed for adherence to the best practice recommendations of the British Society for Allergy and Clinical Immunology (BSACI), the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Guidance on Drug Allergy-CG183. RESULTS: Over 1200 patients were evaluated in 44 centres annually. Variation in workload, waiting times, access, staffing and diagnostic approach was noted. Paediatric centres had the longest routine waiting times (most wait >13 weeks) in contrast to adult centres (most wait <12 weeks). Service leads are allergists/immunologists (91%) or anaesthetists (7%). Potentially important differences were seen in: testing repertoire [10/44 (23%) lacked BSACI compliant neuromuscular blocking agent (NMBA) panels and 17/44 (39%) lacked a NAP6-defined extended panel; many failed to screen all cases for chlorhexidine 19/44 (43%) or latex 21/44 (48%)], staffing [only 26/44 (59%) had specialist nurses and 18/44 (41%) an anaesthetist] and provision of information [18/44 (41%) gave immediate information in clinic and 5/44 (11%) sign-posted support groups]. Most centres were able to provide diagnostic challenges to antibiotics [40/44 (91%]) and local anaesthetics [41/44 (93%)]. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Diagnostic testing is not harmonized, with marked variability in the NMBA panels used to identify safe alternatives. Chlorhexidine and latex are not part of routine testing in many centres. Poor access to services and patient information provision require attention. Harmonization of diagnostic approach is desirable, particularly with regard to a minimum NMBA panel for identification of safe alternatives.

5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: protocol, methods, and analysis of data.

BACKGROUND: Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA) with recall is a potentially distressing complication of general anaesthesia that can lead to psychological harm. The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) was designed to investigate the reported incidence, predisposing factors, causality, and impact of accidental awareness. METHODS: A nationwide network of local co-ordinators across all the UK and Irish public hospitals reported all new patient reports of accidental awareness to a central database, using a system of monthly anonymized reporting over a calendar year. The database collected the details of the reported event, anaesthetic and surgical technique, and any sequelae. These reports were categorized into main types by a multidisciplinary panel, using a formalized process of analysis. RESULTS: The main categories of accidental awareness were: certain or probable; possible; during sedation; on or from the intensive care unit; could not be determined; unlikely; drug errors; and statement only. The degree of evidence to support the categorization was also defined for each report. Patient experience and sequelae were categorized using current tools or modifications of such. CONCLUSIONS: The NAP5 methodology may be used to assess new reports of AAGA in a standardized manner, especially for the development of an ongoing database of case reporting. This paper is a shortened version describing the protocols, methods, and data analysis from NAP5--the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home.

5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: patient experiences, human factors, sedation, consent, and medicolegal issues.

The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland into accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA) yielded data related to psychological aspects from the patient, and the anaesthetist, perspectives; patients' experiences ranged from isolated auditory or tactile sensations to complete awareness. A striking finding was that 75% of experiences were for <5 min, yet 51% of patients [95% confidence interval (CI) 43-60%] experienced distress and 41% (95% CI 33-50%) suffered longer term adverse effect. Distress and longer term harm occurred across the full range of experiences but were particularly likely when the patient experienced paralysis (with or without pain). The patient's interpretation of what is happening at the time of the awareness seemed central to later impact; explanation and reassurance during suspected AAGA or at the time of report seemed beneficial. Quality of care before the event was judged good in 26%, poor in 39%, and mixed in 31%. Three-quarters of cases of AAGA (75%) were judged preventable. In 12%, AAGA care was judged good and the episode not preventable. The contributory and human factors in the genesis of the majority of cases of AAGA included medication, patient, and education/training. The findings have implications for national guidance, institutional organization, and individual practice. The incidence of 'accidental awareness' during sedation (~1:15,000) was similar to that during general anaesthesia (~1:19,000). The project raises significant issues about information giving and consent for both sedation and anaesthesia. We propose a novel approach to describing sedation from the patient's perspective which could be used in communication and consent. Eight (6%) of the patients had resorted to legal action (12, 11%, to formal complaint) at the time of reporting. NAP5 methodology provides a standardized template that might usefully inform the investigation of claims or serious incidents related to AAGA.

5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors.

We present the main findings of the 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). Incidences were estimated using reports of accidental awareness as the numerator, and a parallel national anaesthetic activity survey to provide denominator data. The incidence of certain/probable and possible accidental awareness cases was ~1:19,600 anaesthetics (95% confidence interval 1:16,700-23,450). However, there was considerable variation across subtypes of techniques or subspecialities. The incidence with neuromuscular block (NMB) was ~1:8200 (1:7030-9700), and without, it was ~1:135,900 (1:78,600-299,000). The cases of AAGA reported to NAP5 were overwhelmingly cases of unintended awareness during NMB. The incidence of accidental awareness during Caesarean section was ~1:670 (1:380-1300). Two-thirds (82, 66%) of cases of accidental awareness experiences arose in the dynamic phases of anaesthesia, namely induction of and emergence from anaesthesia. During induction of anaesthesia, contributory factors included: use of thiopental, rapid sequence induction, obesity, difficult airway management, NMB, and interruptions of anaesthetic delivery during movement from anaesthetic room to theatre. During emergence from anaesthesia, residual paralysis was perceived by patients as accidental awareness, and commonly related to a failure to ensure full return of motor capacity. One-third (43, 33%) of accidental awareness events arose during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia, mostly due to problems at induction or towards the end of anaesthesia. Factors increasing the risk of accidental awareness included: female sex, age (younger adults, but not children), obesity, anaesthetist seniority (junior trainees), previous awareness, out-of-hours operating, emergencies, type of surgery (obstetric, cardiac, thoracic), and use of NMB. The following factors were not risk factors for accidental awareness: ASA physical status, race, and use or omission of nitrous oxide. We recommend that an anaesthetic checklist, to be an integral part of the World Health Organization Safer Surgery checklist, is introduced as an aid to preventing accidental awareness. This paper is a shortened version describing the main findings from NAP5--the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home.

The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: protocol, methods and analysis of data.

Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia with recall is a potentially distressing complication of general anaesthesia that can lead to psychological harm. The 5th National Audit Project was designed to investigate the reported incidence, predisposing factors, causality and impact of accidental awareness. A nationwide network of local co-ordinators across all UK and Irish public hospitals reported all new patient reports of accidental awareness to a central database, using a system of monthly anonymised reporting over a calendar year. The database collected the details of the reported event, anaesthetic and surgical technique, and any sequelae. These reports were categorised into main types by a multidisciplinary panel, using a formalised process of analysis. The main categories of accidental awareness were: certain or probable; possible; during sedation; on or from the intensive care unit; could not be determined; unlikely; drug errors; and statement only. The degree of evidence to support the categorisation was also defined for each report. Patient experience and sequelae were categorised using current tools or modifications of such. The 5th National Audit Project methodology may be used to assess new reports of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia in a standardised manner, especially for the development of an ongoing database of case reporting. This paper is a shortened version describing the protocols, methods and data analysis from 5th National Audit Project - the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home#pt.

The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: summary of main findings and risk factors.

We present the main findings of the 5th National Audit Project on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. Incidences were estimated using reports of accidental awareness as the numerator, and a parallel national anaesthetic activity survey to provide denominator data. The incidence of certain/probable and possible accidental awareness cases was ~1:19 600 anaesthetics (95% CI 1:16 700-23 450). However, there was considerable variation across subtypes of techniques or subspecialties. The incidence with neuromuscular blockade was ~1:8200 (1:7030-9700), and without it was ~1:135 900 (1:78 600-299 000). The cases of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia reported to 5th National Audit Project were overwhelmingly cases of unintended awareness during neuromuscular blockade. The incidence of accidental awareness during caesarean section was ~1:670 (1:380-1300). Two thirds (82, 66%) of cases of accidental awareness experiences arose in the dynamic phases of anaesthesia, namely induction of and emergence from anaesthesia. During induction of anaesthesia, contributory factors included: use of thiopental; rapid sequence induction; obesity; difficult airway management; neuromuscular blockade; and interruptions of anaesthetic delivery during movement from anaesthetic room to theatre. During emergence from anaesthesia, residual paralysis was perceived by patients as accidental awareness, and commonly related to a failure to ensure full return of motor capacity. One third (43, 33%) of accidental awareness events arose during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia, most due to problems at induction or towards the end of anaesthesia. Factors increasing the risk of accidental awareness included: female sex; age (younger adults, but not children); obesity; anaesthetist seniority (junior trainees); previous awareness; out-of-hours operating; emergencies; type of surgery (obstetric, cardiac, thoracic); and use of neuromuscular blockade. The following factors were not risk factors for accidental awareness: ASA physical status; race; and use or omission of nitrous oxide. We recommend that an anaesthetic checklist, to be an integral part of the World Health Organization Safer Surgery checklist, is introduced as an aid to preventing accidental awareness. This paper is a shortened version describing the main findings from 5th National Audit Project - the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home#pt.

The 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia: patient experiences, human factors, sedation, consent and medicolegal issues.

The 5th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland into accidental awareness during general anaesthesia yielded data related to psychological aspects from the patient, and the anaesthetist, perspectives; patients' experiences ranged from isolated auditory or tactile sensations to complete awareness. A striking finding was that 75% of experiences were for < 5 min, yet 51% of patients (95% CI 43-60%) experienced distress and 41% (95% CI 33-50%) suffered longer-term adverse effect. Distress and longer-term harm occurred across the full range of experiences but were particularly likely when the patient experienced paralysis (with or without pain). The patient's interpretation of what is happening at the time of the awareness seemed central to later impact; explanation and reassurance during suspected accidental awareness during general anaesthesia or at the time of report seemed beneficial. Quality of care before the event was judged good in 26%, poor in 39% and mixed in 31%. Three quarters of cases of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (75%) were judged preventable. In 12% of cases of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, care was judged good and the episode not preventable. The contributory and human factors in the genesis of the majority of cases of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia included medication, patient and education/training. The findings have implications for national guidance, institutional organisation and individual practice. The incidence of 'accidental awareness' during sedation (~1:15 000) was similar to that during general anaesthesia (~1:19 000). The project raises significant issues about information giving and consent for both sedation and anaesthesia. We propose a novel approach to describing sedation from the patient's perspective which could be used in communication and consent. Eight (6%) of the patients had resorted to legal action (12, 11%, to formal complaint) at the time of reporting. The 5th National Audit Project methodology provides a standardised template that might usefully inform the investigation of claims or serious incidents related to accidental awareness during general anaesthesia.