Perspectives on Anesthesia and Perioperative Patient Safety: Past, Present, and Future.

During the past 70 years, patient safety science has evolved through four organizational frameworks known as Safety-0, Safety -1, Safety-2, and Safety-3. Their evolution reflects the realization over time that blaming people, chasing errors, fixing one-offs, and regulation would not create the desired patient safety. In Safety-0, the oldest framework, harm events arise from clinician failure; event prevention relies on better staffing, education, and basic standards. In Safety-1, used by hospitals, harm events arise from individual and/or system failures. Safety is improved through analytics, workplace culture, high reliability principles, technology, and quality improvement. Safety-2 emphasizes clinicians' adaptability to prevent harm events in an everchanging environment, using resilience engineering principles. Safety-3, used by aviation, adds system design and control elements to Safety-1 and Safety-2, deploying human factors, design-thinking, and operational control or feedback to prevent and respond to harm events. Safety-3 represents a potential way for anesthesia and perioperative care to become safer.

Safety improvement requires data: the case for automation and artificial intelligence during incident reporting.

The reporting of incidents has a long association with safety in healthcare and anaesthesia, yet many incident reporting systems substantially under-report critical events. Better understanding the underlying reasons for low levels of critical incident reporting can allow such factors to be addressed systematically to arrive at a better reporting culture. However, new forms of automation in anaesthesia also provide powerful new approaches to be adopted in the future.

Critical airway-related incidents and near misses in anaesthesia: a qualitative study of a critical incident reporting system.

BACKGROUND: Many serious adverse events in anaesthesia are retrospectively rated as preventable. Anonymous reporting of near misses to a critical incident reporting system (CIRS) can identify structural weaknesses and improve quality, but incidents are often underreported. METHODS: This prospective qualitative study aimed to identify conceptions of a CIRS and reasons for underreporting at a single Swiss centre. Anaesthesia cases were screened to identify critical airway-related incidents that qualified to be reported to the CIRS. Anaesthesia providers involved in these incidents were individually interviewed. Factors that prevented or encouraged reporting of critical incidents to the CIRS were evaluated. Interview data were analysed using the Framework method. RESULTS: Of 3668 screened airway management procedures, 101 cases (2.8%) involved a critical incident. Saturation was reached after interviewing 21 anaesthesia providers, who had been involved in 42/101 critical incidents (41.6%). Only one incident (1.0%) had been reported to the CIRS, demonstrating significant underreporting. Interviews revealed highly variable views on the aims of the CIRS with an overall high threshold for reporting a critical incident. Factors hindering reporting of cases included concerns regarding identifiability of the reported incident and involved healthcare providers. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to foster anonymity of reporting, such as by national rather than departmental critical incident reporting system databases, and a change in culture is required to enhance reporting of critical incidents. Institutions managing a critical incident reporting system need to ensure timely feedback to the team regarding lessons learned, consequences, and changes to standards of care owing to reported critical incidents. Consistent reporting and assessment of critical incidents is required to allow the full potential of a critical incident reporting system.

Gender Differences in Authorship and Quality of Anesthesia Clinical Practice Guidelines From 2016 to 2020 Using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II Instrument.

INTRODUCTION: Women continue to be underrepresented in academic anesthesiology. This study assessed guidelines in anesthesia journals over the past 5 years, evaluating differences in woman-led versus man-led guidelines in terms of author gender, quality, and changes over time. We hypothesized that anesthesia guidelines would be predominately man-led, and that there would be differences in quality between woman-led versus man-led guidelines. METHODS: All clinical practice guidelines published in the top 10 anesthesia journals were identified as per Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor between 2016 and 2020. Fifty-one guidelines were included for author, gender, and quality analysis using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument. Each guideline was assessed across 6 domains and 23 items and given an overall score, overall quality score, and overall rating/recommendation. Stratified and trend analyses were performed for woman-led versus man-led guidelines. RESULTS: Fifty out of 51 guidelines were included: 1 was excluded due to unidentifiable first-author gender. In total, 255 of 1052 (24%) authors were women, and woman-led guidelines (woman-first author) represented 12 of 50 (24%) overall guidelines. Eighteen percent (9 of 50) of guidelines had all-male authors, and a majority (26 of 50, 52%) had less than one-third of female authors. The overall number and percentage of woman-led guidelines did not change over time. There was a significantly higher percentage of female authors in woman-led versus man-led guidelines, median 39% vs 20% ( P = .012), as well as a significantly higher number of female coauthors in guidelines that were woman-led median 3.5 vs 1.0, P = .049. For quality, there was no significant difference in the overall rating or objective quality of woman- versus man-led guidelines. However, there was a significant increase in the overall rating of all the guidelines over time ( P = .010), driven by the increase in overall rating among man-led guidelines, P = .002. The overall score of guidelines did not increase over time; however, they increased in man-led but not woman-led guidelines. There was no significant correlation between the percentage of female authors per guideline and either overall score or overall rating. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial disparity in the number of women leading and contributing to guidelines which has not improved over time. Woman-led guidelines included more women and a higher percentage of women. There was no difference in quality of guidelines by first-author gender or percentage of female authors. Further systematic and quota-driven sponsorship is needed to promote gender equity, diversity, and inclusion in anesthesia guidelines.

Care of the Pediatric Patient for Ambulatory Tonsillectomy With or Without Adenoidectomy: The Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Position Statement.

The landscape of ambulatory surgery is changing, and tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy is one of the most common pediatric surgical procedures performed nationally. The number of children undergoing tonsillectomy on an ambulatory basis continues to increase. The 2 most common indications for tonsillectomy are recurrent throat infections and obstructive sleep-disordered breathing. The most frequent early complications after tonsillectomy are hemorrhage and ventilatory compromise. In areas lacking a dedicated children's hospital, these cases are managed by a nonpediatric specialized anesthesiologist and general otolaryngology surgeon. In response to requests from our members without pediatric fellowship training and/or who care for pediatric patients infrequently, the Pediatric Committee of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) developed a position statement with recommendations for the safe perioperative care of pediatric patients undergoing tonsillectomy with and without adenoidectomy in freestanding ambulatory surgical facilities. This statement identifies children that are more likely to experience complications and to require additional dedicated provider time that is not conducive to the rapid pace and staffing ratios of many freestanding ambulatory centers with mixed adult and pediatric practices. The aim is to provide health care professionals with practical criteria and suggestions based on the best available evidence. When high-quality evidence is unavailable, we relied on group consensus from pediatric ambulatory specialists in the SAMBA Pediatric Committee. Consensus recommendations were presented to the Pediatric Committee of SAMBA.

Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia Updated Consensus Statement on Perioperative Blood Glucose Management in Adult Patients With Diabetes Mellitus Undergoing Ambulatory Surgery.

This consensus statement is a comprehensive update of the 2010 Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia (SAMBA) Consensus Statement on perioperative blood glucose management in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) undergoing ambulatory surgery. Since the original consensus guidelines in 2010, several novel therapeutic interventions have been introduced to treat DM, including new hypoglycemic agents and increasing prevalence of insulin pumps and continuous glucose monitors. The updated recommendations were developed by an expert task force under the provision of SAMBA and are based on a comprehensive review of the literature from 1980 to 2022. The task force included SAMBA members with expertise on this topic and those contributing to the primary literature regarding the management of DM in the perioperative period. The recommendations encompass preoperative evaluation of patients with DM presenting for ambulatory surgery, management of preoperative oral hypoglycemic agents and home insulins, intraoperative testing and treatment modalities, and blood glucose management in the postanesthesia care unit and transition to home after surgery. High-quality evidence pertaining to perioperative blood glucose management in patients with DM undergoing ambulatory surgery remains sparse. Recommendations are therefore based on recent guidelines and available literature, including general glucose management in patients with DM, data from inpatient surgical populations, drug pharmacology, and emerging treatment data. Areas in need of further research are also identified. Importantly, the benefits and risks of interventions and clinical practice information were considered to ensure that the recommendations maintain patient safety and are clinically valid and useful in the ambulatory setting. What Other Guidelines Are Available on This Topic? Since the publication of the SAMBA Consensus Statement for perioperative blood glucose management in the ambulatory setting in 2010, several recent guidelines have been issued by the American Diabetes Association (ADA), the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE), the Endocrine Society, the Centre for Perioperative Care (CPOC), and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) on DM care in hospitalized patients; however, none are specific to ambulatory surgery. How Does This Guideline Differ From the Previous Guidelines? Previously posed clinical questions that were outdated were revised to reflect current clinical practice. Additional questions were developed relating to the perioperative management of patients with DM to include the newer therapeutic interventions.

Development and implementation of local pediatric anesthesia performance metrics at a Canadian children's hospital: a technical report.

PURPOSE: In this project, we sought to develop and implement pediatric anesthesia metrics into electronic health records (EHR) in a hospital setting to improve quality and safety of patient care. While there has been an upsurge in metric-driven health care, specific metrics catering to pediatric anesthesia remain lacking despite widespread use of EHR. The rapid proliferation and implementation of EHR presents opportunities to develop and implement metrics appropriate to local patient care, in this case pediatric anesthesia, with the strategic goal of enhancing quality and safety of patient care, while also delivering transparency in reporting of such metrics. CLINICAL FEATURES: Using a quasi-nominal consensus group design, we collected requirements from attending anesthesiologists using Agile methodology. Forty-five metrics addressing quality of care (e.g., induction experience, anesthesia delivery, unanticipated events, and postanesthetic care unit stay) and provider performance (e.g., bundle-compliance, collaboration, skills assurance) were developed. Implementation involved integration into the EHR followed by transition from PDF-based feedback to interactive Power BI (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA) dashboards. CONCLUSION: We introduced and implemented customized pediatric anesthesia metrics within an academic pediatric hospital; however, this framework is easily adaptable across multiple clinical specialties and institutions. In harnessing data-collecting and reporting properties of EHR, the metrics we describe provide insights that facilitate real-time monitoring and foster a culture of continuous learning in line with strategic goals of high-reliability organizations.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Dans le cadre de ce projet, nous avons cherché à développer et à mettre en œuvre des mesures d'anesthésie pédiatrique dans les dossiers de santé électroniques (DSE) en milieu hospitalier afin d'améliorer la qualité et la sécurité des soins aux patient·es. Bien qu'il y ait eu une recrudescence des soins de santé guidés par les procédures d'évaluation, les mesures spécifiques à l'anesthésie pédiatrique restent insuffisantes malgré l'utilisation généralisée du DSE. La prolifération et la mise en œuvre rapides des DSE offrent des possibilités d'élaborer et de mettre en œuvre des paramètres appropriés aux soins locaux aux patient·es, dans ce cas-ci en anesthésie pédiatrique, dans le but stratégique d'améliorer la qualité et la sécurité des soins tout en assurant la transparence des communications concernant ces paramètres. CARACTéRISTIQUES CLINIQUES: À l'aide d'un modèle de groupe consensuel quasi nominal, nous avons recueilli les exigences des anesthésiologistes traitant·es à l'aide de la méthodologie Agile. Quarante-cinq paramètres portant sur la qualité des soins (p. ex., l'expérience d'induction, l'administration de l'anesthésie, les événements imprévus et le séjour en salle de réveil) et la productivité des prestataires (p. ex., l'observance des forfaits, la collaboration, l'assurance des compétences) ont été élaborés. La mise en œuvre a impliqué l'intégration dans le DSE, suivie de la transition des commentaires en format PDF vers les tableaux de bord interactifs Power BI (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, États-Unis). CONCLUSION: Nous avons introduit et mis en œuvre des mesures personnalisées de l'anesthésie pédiatrique au sein d'un hôpital pédiatrique universitaire. Cependant, ce cadre est facilement adaptable à de multiples spécialités cliniques et institutions. Parce qu'elles exploitent les propriétés de collecte de données et de communications du DSE, les mesures que nous décrivons fournissent des informations qui facilitent la surveillance en temps réel et favorisent une culture d'apprentissage continu conforme aux objectifs stratégiques des organisations à haute fiabilité.

Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review.

PURPOSE: Improvement in delivery of perioperative care depends on the ability to measure outcomes that can direct meaningful changes in practice. We sought to identify and provide an overview of perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery. SOURCE: We conducted an umbrella review (a systematic review of systematic reviews) according to Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. We included systematic reviews examining perioperative indicators in patients ≥ 18 yr of age undergoing noncardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was any quality indicator specific to anesthesia. Indicators were classified by the Donabedian system and perioperative phase of care. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2 criteria. Level of evidence of quality indicators was stratified by the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Our search returned 1,475 studies. After removing duplicates and screening of abstracts and full texts, 23 systematic reviews encompassing 3,164 primary studies met our inclusion criteria. There were 330 unique quality indicators. Process indicators were most common (n = 169), followed by outcome (n = 114) and structure indicators (n = 47). Few identified indicators were supported by high-level evidence (45/330, 14%). Level 1 evidence supported indicators of antibiotic prophylaxis (1a), venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (1a), postoperative nausea/vomiting prophylaxis (1b), maintenance of normothermia (1a), and goal-directed fluid therapy (1b). CONCLUSION: This umbrella review highlights the scarcity of perioperative quality indicators that are supported by high quality evidence. Future development of quality indicators and recommendations for outcome measurement should focus on metrics that are supported by level 1 evidence. Potential targets for evidence-based quality-improvement programs in anesthesia are identified herein. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); first registered 28 April 2020.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'amélioration de la prestation des soins périopératoires dépend de la capacité de mesurer les résultats qui peuvent orienter des changements significatifs dans la pratique. Nous avons cherché à identifier et à fournir une vue d'ensemble des indicateurs périopératoires de qualité spécifiques à la pratique de l'anesthésie en chirurgie non cardiaque. SOURCES: Nous avons mené une revue d'ensemble (une revue systématique des revues systématiques) selon la méthodologie de l'Institut Joanna Briggs. Nous avons inclus des revues systématiques examinant les indicateurs périopératoires chez les patient·es âgé·es de 18 ans ou plus bénéficiant d'une chirurgie non cardiaque. Notre critère d'évaluation principal était tout indicateur de qualité spécifique à l'anesthésie. Les indicateurs ont été classés en fonction du système de Donabedian et de la phase périopératoire des soins. La qualité des revues systématiques a été évaluée à l'aide des critères AMSTAR 2. Le niveau de donnée probante des indicateurs de qualité a été stratifié selon l'Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Classification. CONSTATATIONS PRINCIPALES: Notre recherche a permis de trouver 1475 études. Après avoir éliminé les doublons et examiné les résumés et les textes intégraux, 23 revues systématiques englobant 3164 études primaires ont répondu à nos critères d'inclusion. Il y avait 330 indicateurs de qualité uniques. Les indicateurs de processus étaient les plus courants (n = 169), suivi des indicateurs de résultats (n = 114) et des indicateurs de structure (n = 47). Peu d'indicateurs identifiés étaient étayés par des données probantes de haut niveau (45/330, 14 %). Les données probantes de niveau 1 ont confirmé les indicateurs de l'antibioprophylaxie (1a), de la prophylaxie pour la thromboembolie veineuse (1a), de la prophylaxie postopératoire pour les nausées/vomissements (1b), du maintien de la normothermie (1a) et de la fluidothérapie ciblée (1b). CONCLUSION: Cet examen d'ensemble met en évidence la rareté des indicateurs périopératoires de qualité qui sont étayés par des données probantes de haute qualité. L'élaboration future d'indicateurs de qualité et de recommandations pour la mesure des résultats devrait être axée sur des paramètres étayés par des données probantes de niveau 1. Les cibles potentielles des programmes d'amélioration de la qualité de l'anesthésie fondés sur des données probantes sont identifiées dans le présent manuscrit. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42020164691); premier enregistrement le 28 avril 2020.

Pediatric anesthesia in Europe: Variations within uniformity.

Organization of healthcare strongly differs between European countries and results in country-specific requirements in postgraduate medical training. Within the European Union (EU), the European Board of Anaesthesiology has set recommendations of training for the Specialty of Anaesthesiology including standards for Postgraduate Medical Specialist training including a description for providing service in pediatric anesthesia. However, these standards are advisory and not mandatory. Here we aimed to review the current state and associated challenges of pediatric anesthesia training in Europe. We report an important country-specific variability both in training and regulations of practice of pediatric anesthesia in the EU and in the United Kingdom. The requirements for training in pediatric anesthesia varies between nothing specified (Belgium) or providing anesthesia with direct supervision to a minimum of 50 cases below 5 years of age (Germany) to 3-6 month clinical practice in a specialized pediatric hospital (France). Likewise, the regulations for providing anesthesia to children varies from no regulations at all (Belgium) to age specific requirements and centralization of all children below 4 years of age to specified centers (United Kingdom). Officially recognized pediatric anesthesia fellowship programs are not available in most countries of Europe. It remains unclear if and how country-specific differences in pediatric anesthesia training are associated with clinical outcomes in pediatric perioperative care. There is converging interest and support for the establishment of a European pediatric anesthesia curriculum.

Quality of Preanesthesia Teleconsultation: The TELECAM Randomized Controlled Trial.

Introduction: Preanesthesia teleconsultation helps reduce availability constraints as well as direct and indirect expenses. The TELECAM trial was performed to assess the quality of preanesthesia teleconsultation in terms of clinical parameters evaluation, feasibility, patient satisfaction and preoperative anxiety, and anesthesiologist satisfaction. Methods: TELECAM was an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-center, randomized, controlled, parallel group, evaluator-blinded, open-label study. Patients with a scheduled ambulatory surgery (orthopedic or hand surgery) were randomized into the in-person preanesthesia consultation group or the preanesthesia teleconsultation (conducted at the patient's home or workplace) group. The quality of the teleconsultation was evaluated through agreement on intubation difficulty, predictable mask ventilation difficulty, and American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores between the preanesthesia consultation and the preanesthesia in-person visit. Results: A total of 241 patients were included, and 208 were considered in the analyses. The feasibility of teleconsultation was high, with a feasibility ratio of 87.5%. The quality of the preanesthesia consultation regarding the evaluation of predictable intubation, mask ventilation difficulties, and ASA score, did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.23, 0.29, and 0.06, respectively). The preoperative satisfaction was higher for patients who had a preanesthesia teleconsultation (p = 0.04). Patients' preoperative anxiety did not differ between the two groups (p = 0.90). The median satisfaction of the anesthesiologists who performed the teleconsultation reached a maximum of 10 (IQR: 8.0; 10.0). Conclusion: This study showed positive results for the quality of preanesthesia teleconsultation on the evaluation of clinical parameters, with high feasibility and satisfaction of the patients and anesthesiologists. The trial was registered in ClinicalTrials (NCT03470896).

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.

Beyond adverse events in anesthesiology: 'unanticipated events' and strategies for improved reporting.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patient safety in anesthesiology has advanced significantly over the past several decades. The current process of improving care is often based on studying adverse events (AEs) and near misses. However, there is a wealth of information not captured by focusing solely on these events, potentially resulting in missed opportunities for care improvements. RECENT FINDINGS: We review terms such as AEs and nonroutine events (NREs), and introduce the concept of unanticipated events (UEs), defined as events that deviate from intended care that may/may not have been caused by error, may/may not be preventable, and may/may not have caused injury to a patient. UEs incorporate AEs in addition to many other anesthetic events not routinely tracked, allowing for trend analysis over time and the identification of additional opportunities for quality improvement. We review both automated and self-reporting tools that currently exist to capture this often-neglected wealth of data. Finally, we discuss the responsibility of quality/safety leaders for data monitoring. SUMMARY: Consistent reporting and monitoring for trends related to UEs could allow departments to identify risks and mitigate harm before it occurs. We review various proposed methods to expand data collection, and recommend anesthesia practices pursue UE tracking through department-specific reporting interfaces.

Artificial intelligence and nonoperating room anesthesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) represents a timely and significant advancement. As the demand for NORA services expands, the application of AI is poised to improve patient selection, perioperative care, and anesthesia delivery. This review examines AI's growing impact on NORA and how it can optimize our clinical practice in the near future. RECENT FINDINGS: AI has already improved various aspects of anesthesia, including preoperative assessment, intraoperative management, and postoperative care. Studies highlight AI's role in patient risk stratification, real-time decision support, and predictive modeling for patient outcomes. Notably, AI applications can be used to target patients at risk of complications, alert clinicians to the upcoming occurrence of an intraoperative adverse event such as hypotension or hypoxemia, or predict their tolerance of anesthesia after the procedure. Despite these advances, challenges persist, including ethical considerations, algorithmic bias, data security, and the need for transparent decision-making processes within AI systems. SUMMARY: The findings underscore the substantial benefits of AI in NORA, which include improved safety, efficiency, and personalized care. AI's predictive capabilities in assessing hypoxemia risk and other perioperative events, have demonstrated potential to exceed human prognostic accuracy. The implications of these findings advocate for a careful yet progressive adoption of AI in clinical practice, encouraging the development of robust ethical guidelines, continual professional training, and comprehensive data management strategies. Furthermore, AI's role in anesthesia underscores the need for multidisciplinary research to address the limitations and fully leverage AI's capabilities for patient-centered anesthesia care.

Patient selection for nonoperating room anesthesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Given the rapid growth of nonoperating room anesthesia (NORA) in recent years, it is essential to review its unique challenges as well as strategies for patient selection and care optimization. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent investigations have uncovered an increasing prevalence of older and higher ASA physical status patients in NORA settings. Although closed claim data regarding patient injury demonstrate a lower proportion of NORA cases resulting in a claim than traditional operating room cases, NORA cases have an increased risk of claim for death. Challenges within NORA include site-specific differences, limitations in ergonomic design, and increased stress among anesthesia providers. Several authors have thus proposed strategies focusing on standardizing processes, site-specific protocols, and ergonomic improvements to mitigate risks. SUMMARY: Considering the unique challenges of NORA settings, meticulous patient selection, risk stratification, and preoperative optimization are crucial. Embracing data-driven strategies and leveraging technological innovations (such as artificial intelligence) is imperative to refine quality control methods in targeted areas. Collaborative efforts led by anesthesia providers will ensure personalized, well tolerated, and improved patient outcomes across all phases of NORA care.

The role of human factors engineering in patient safety.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To explore the collaboration between human factors (HFs) experts and clinicians in order to improve perioperative patient safety. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent recommendations to integrate human factors into anesthesia in the United Kingdom emphasizes the value of applying disciplines outside of medicine to optimize the patient experience. SUMMARY: Human factors engineering is underutilized worldwide. Patient safety would benefit from collaboration with HF experts to design resilient systems. Healthcare organizations must consider HF to develop and implement user-centered solutions to improve safety for patients and professionals.

Machine learning: implications and applications for ambulatory anesthesia.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores the timely and relevant applications of machine learning in ambulatory anesthesia, focusing on its potential to optimize operational efficiency, personalize risk assessment, and enhance patient care. RECENT FINDINGS: Machine learning models have demonstrated the ability to accurately forecast case durations, Post-Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) lengths of stay, and risk of hospital transfers based on preoperative patient and procedural factors. These models can inform case scheduling, resource allocation, and preoperative evaluation. Additionally, machine learning can standardize assessments, predict outcomes, improve handoff communication, and enrich patient education. SUMMARY: Machine learning has the potential to revolutionize ambulatory anesthesia practice by optimizing efficiency, personalizing care, and improving quality and safety. However, limitations such as algorithmic opacity, data biases, reproducibility issues, and adoption barriers must be addressed through transparent, participatory design principles and ongoing validation to ensure responsible innovation and incremental adoption.

Anesthesia for gender-affirming surgery: a practical review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Gender-affirming surgery (GAS) is an effective, well studied, and often necessary component of gender-affirming care and mitigation of gender dysphoria for transgender and gender-diverse (TGD) individuals. GAS is categorized as chest surgeries, genitourinary surgeries, facial feminization/masculinization, and vocal phonosurgery. Despite increased incidence of GAS during recent years, there is a gap in knowledge and training on perioperative care for TGD patients. RECENT FINDINGS: Our review discusses the relevant anesthetic considerations for the most common GAS, which often involve highly specialized surgical techniques that have unique implications for the anesthesia professional. SUMMARY: Anesthesiology professionals must attend to the surgical and anesthetic nuances of various GAS procedures. However, as many considerations are based on common practice, research is warranted on anesthetic implications and outcomes of GAS.

Anesthesia for traumatic brain injury.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) presents complex clinical challenges, requiring a nuanced understanding of its pathophysiology and current management principles to improve patient outcomes. Anesthetists play a critical role in care and need to stay updated with recent evidence and trends to ensure high-quality treatment. The Brain Trauma Foundation Guidelines, last updated in 2016, have shown moderate adherence, and much of the current management relies on expert opinions. This literature review synthesizes the current evidence and provides insights into the role of anesthetists in TBI management. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent literature has emphasized the importance of tailored anesthetic management principles in treating TBI, focusing on minimizing secondary brain injury during neurosurgical interventions or extracranial surgery. Emerging trends include individualized intracranial pressure approaches and multimodal neuromonitoring for comprehensive assessment of cerebral physiology. SUMMARY: Anesthesia for TBI patients requires a comprehensive approach that balances anesthetic goals with the unique pathophysiological factors of brain injury. Despite recent research expanding our understanding, challenges remain in standardizing protocols and addressing individual patient response variability. Adherence to established management principles, personalized approaches, and ongoing research is crucial for improving the outcomes.

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.

Anesthetic recommendations for maternal and fetal safety in nonobstetric surgery: a balancing act.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Nonobstetric surgery during pregnancy is associated with maternal and fetal risks. Several physiologic changes create unique challenges for anesthesiologists. This review highlights physiologic changes of pregnancy and presents clinical recommendations based on recent literature to guide anesthetic management for the pregnant patient undergoing nonobstetric surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Nearly every anesthetic technique has been safely used in pregnant patients. Although it is difficult to eliminate confounding factors, exposure to anesthetics could endanger fetal brain development. Perioperative fetal monitoring decisions require an obstetric consult based on anticipated maternal and fetal concerns. Given the limitations of fasting guidelines, bedside gastric ultrasound is useful in assessing aspiration risk in pregnant patients. Although there is concern about appropriateness of sugammadex for neuromuscular blockade reversal due its binding to progesterone, preliminary literature supports its safety. SUMMARY: These recommendations will equip anesthesiologists to provide safe care for the pregnant patient and fetus undergoing nonobstetric surgery.