Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 11 de 11
Filter
2.
Br J Anaesth ; 113(4): 540-8, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25204695

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Cognition/physiology , Data Collection/methods , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Databases, Factual , Evidence-Based Medicine , Health Care Surveys , Heart Arrest/etiology , Humans , Intraoperative Awareness/classification , Intraoperative Awareness/mortality , Intraoperative Complications/etiology , Ireland/epidemiology , Medical Errors/statistics & numerical data , Neuromuscular Blockade/adverse effects , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Treatment Outcome , United Kingdom/epidemiology
3.
Br J Anaesth ; 113(4): 560-74, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25204696

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Anesthesia, General/psychology , Anesthesiology/legislation & jurisprudence , Conscious Sedation/adverse effects , Conscious Sedation/psychology , Intraoperative Awareness/psychology , Anesthesiology/instrumentation , Communication , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Informed Consent , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Intraoperative Awareness/prevention & control , Ireland/epidemiology , Medical Errors/legislation & jurisprudence , Medical Errors/psychology , Memory/drug effects , Physicians , Quality of Health Care , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/psychology , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology
4.
Br J Anaesth ; 113(4): 549-59, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25204697

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Age Distribution , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anesthesia Recovery Period , Anesthesia, General/methods , Anesthesia, Intravenous/statistics & numerical data , Anesthesia, Obstetrical/adverse effects , Body Weight , Child , Child, Preschool , Conscious Sedation/adverse effects , Conscious Sedation/psychology , Consciousness Monitors , Critical Care/statistics & numerical data , Drug Resistance , Female , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Intraoperative Awareness/therapy , Ireland/epidemiology , Male , Medical Errors/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Neuromuscular Blockade , Obesity/complications , Obesity/epidemiology , Patient Transfer , Pregnancy , Risk Factors , Syringes , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
5.
Anaesthesia ; 69(10): 1078-88, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25204235

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Clinical Protocols , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Medical Audit , Humans
6.
Anaesthesia ; 69(10): 1089-101, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25204236

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Intraoperative Awareness/etiology , Medical Audit , Humans , Incidence , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Risk Factors
7.
Anaesthesia ; 69(10): 1102-16, 2014 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-25204237

ABSTRACT

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.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Intraoperative Awareness/etiology , Medical Audit , Deep Sedation , Humans , Intraoperative Awareness/psychology , Memory , Stress Disorders, Post-Traumatic/etiology
8.
Anaesthesia ; 69(9): 961-8, 2014 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24975043

ABSTRACT

The second phase of the 5th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland, concerning accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, consisted of a survey of anaesthetic activity in Ireland. A network of consultant anaesthetists co-ordinated data collection from the anaesthetic departments of 46 public and 20 independent hospitals over seven days. Data on patients' characteristics, anaesthetic techniques, staffing, and admission and discharge arrangements were collected on all cases for which anaesthetic care (general, regional or local anaesthesia, sedation or monitored anaesthesia care) was provided. A total of 8049 cases were reported during the survey, giving an annual estimate of 426 600 cases for which anaesthetic care is provided. General anaesthesia constituted 5621 (70%), regional anaesthesia 1404 (17%), local anaesthesia 290 (4%), sedation 618 (8%) and monitored anaesthesia care 116 (1%) of the total number of cases. This survey provides unique data regarding anaesthesia services in public and independent hospitals in Ireland.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Anesthesia, General/statistics & numerical data , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Adult , Aged , Consciousness Monitors , Electroencephalography , Evoked Potentials/drug effects , Female , Health Care Surveys , Health Facility Size , Health Surveys , Hospitals , Humans , Intraoperative Awareness/diagnosis , Ireland/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Intraoperative , Surveys and Questionnaires , Workforce
9.
Anaesthesia ; 69(9): 969-76, 2014 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24975139

ABSTRACT

As part of the 5th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland concerning accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, we issued a questionnaire to every consultant anaesthetist in each of 46 public hospitals in Ireland, represented by 41 local co-ordinators. The survey ascertained the number of new cases of accidental awareness becoming known to them for patients under their care or supervision for a calendar year, as well as their career experience. Consultants from all hospitals responded, with an individual response rate of 87% (299 anaesthetists). There were eight new cases of accidental awareness that became known to consultants in 2011; an estimated incidence of 1:23 366. Two out of the eight cases (25%) occurred at or after induction of anaesthesia, but before surgery; four cases (50%) occurred during surgery; and two cases (25%) occurred after surgery was complete, but before full emergence. Four cases were associated with pain or distress (50%), one after an experience at induction and three after experiences during surgery. There were no formal complaints or legal actions that arose in 2011 related to awareness. Depth of anaesthesia monitoring was reported to be available in 33 (80%) departments, and was used by 184 consultants (62%), 18 (6%) routinely. None of the 46 hospitals had a policy to prevent or manage awareness. Similar to the results of a larger survey in the UK, the disparity between the incidence of awareness as known to anaesthetists and that reported in trials warrants explanation. Compared with UK practice, there appears to be greater use of depth of anaesthesia monitoring in Ireland, although this is still infrequent.


Subject(s)
Anesthesiology/statistics & numerical data , General Surgery/statistics & numerical data , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Anesthesia , Child , Child, Preschool , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Female , Health Care Surveys , Hospitals, Private , Hospitals, Public , Humans , Incidence , Infant , Infant, Newborn , Ireland/epidemiology , Male , Middle Aged , Young Adult
10.
Br J Anaesth ; 110(4): 501-9, 2013 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23482998

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: As part of the 5th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland concerning accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, we issued a questionnaire to every consultant and staff and associate specialist anaesthetist in the UK. METHODS: The survey was designed to ascertain the number of new cases of accidental awareness that became known to them, for patients under their direct or supervised care, for a calendar year, and also to estimate how many cases they had experienced during their careers. The survey also asked about use of monitoring designed to measure the depth of anaesthesia. RESULTS: All local co-ordinators responsible for each of 329 hospitals (organised into 265 'centres') in the UK responded, as did 7125 anaesthetists (82%). There were 153 new cases of accidental awareness notified to respondents in 2011, an estimated incidence of 1:15 414, lower than the 1-2:1000 previously reported in prospective clinical trials. Almost half the cases (72, 47%) occurred at or after induction of anaesthesia but before surgery, with 46 (30%) occurring during surgery and 35 (23%) after surgery before full recovery. Awareness during surgery appeared to lead more frequently to pain or distress than at induction and emergence (62% vs 28% and 23%, respectively). Depth of anaesthesia monitors were available in 164 centres (62%), but routinely used by only 132 (1.8%) of anaesthetists. CONCLUSION: The disparity between the incidence of awareness as notified to anaesthetists and that reported in trials warrants further examination and explanation.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/adverse effects , Anesthesiology , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Physicians , Adolescent , Adult , Age Factors , Aged , Clinical Protocols , Consciousness Monitors , Female , Health Surveys , Humans , Intraoperative Awareness/diagnosis , Intraoperative Awareness/prevention & control , Male , Middle Aged , Pain, Postoperative/complications , Pain, Postoperative/epidemiology , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
11.
Anaesthesia ; 68(4): 343-53, 2013 Apr.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-23488832

ABSTRACT

As part of the 5th National Audit Project of the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland concerning accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, we issued a questionnaire to every consultant and staff and associate specialist anaesthetist in the UK. The survey was designed to ascertain the number of new cases of accidental awareness that became known to them, for patients under their direct or supervised care, for a calendar year, and also to estimate how many cases they had experienced during their careers. The survey also asked about use of monitoring designed to measure the depth of anaesthesia. All local co-ordinators responsible for each of 329 hospitals (organised into 265 'centres') in the UK responded, as did 7125 anaesthetists (82%). There were 153 new cases of accidental awareness notified to respondents in 2011, an estimated incidence of 1:15 414, lower than the 1-2:1000 previously reported in prospective clinical trials. Almost half the cases (72, 47%) occurred at or after induction of anaesthesia but before surgery, with 46 (30%) occurring during surgery and 35 (23%) after surgery before full recovery. Awareness during surgery appeared to lead more frequently to pain or distress than at induction and emergence (62% vs 28% and 23%, respectively). Depth of anaesthesia monitors were available in 164 centres (62%), but routinely used by only 132 (1.8%) of anaesthetists. The disparity between the incidence of awareness as notified to anaesthetists and that reported in trials warrants further examination and explanation.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia, General/statistics & numerical data , Anesthesiology/standards , Health Care Surveys/methods , Intraoperative Awareness/epidemiology , Medical Audit/methods , Adult , Anesthesia, General/methods , Anesthesiology/methods , Awareness/drug effects , Health Care Surveys/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Medical Audit/statistics & numerical data , Middle Aged , Monitoring, Intraoperative/methods , Monitoring, Intraoperative/statistics & numerical data , Prospective Studies , Surveys and Questionnaires , United Kingdom/epidemiology , Young Adult
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL