The use of nitrous oxide 'cracking' technology in the labour ward: a case report and patient account.

Nitrous oxide is a common choice of labour analgesia in many countries. However, its use is associated with significant cost to the environment as well as potential risks of long-term occupational exposure. Our hospital is one of a small number of healthcare providers in the United Kingdom trialling technology which catalytically destroys ('cracks') nitrous oxide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and occupational exposure. When used in the setting of inhaled analgesia, cracking technology relies on capturing the patient's exhaled breath via a facemask or mouthpiece, a technique which requires some user skill and may be challenging for patients. In this report, we present the case of a primiparous 35-year-old consultant anaesthetist, who used nitrous oxide cracking technology with inhaled nitrous oxide analgesia (via a facemask) during labour. We present the patient's experiences and discuss the implications of using such technology on ambient nitrous oxide levels in the delivery room. Notably, despite this patient's professional expertise and familiarity with facemask use, nitrous oxide remained detectable throughout her labour, although generally at low levels. This illustrates that whilst this technology has the potential to reduce ambient nitrous oxide levels, its efficacy may vary depending on how it is used, with implications for patient education and support.

Implementing nitrous oxide cracking technology in the labour ward to reduce occupational exposure and environmental emissions: a quality improvement study.

Nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas, is a common labour analgesic. One method which may reduce its carbon footprint is to 'crack' the exhaled gas into nitrogen and oxygen using catalytic destruction. In this quality improvement project, based on environmental monitoring and staff feedback, we assessed the impact of nitrous oxide cracking technology in the maternity setting. Mean ambient nitrous oxide levels were recorded during the final 30 minutes of uncomplicated labour in 36 cases and plotted on a run chart. Interventions were implemented in four stages, comprising: stage 1, baseline (12 cases); stage 2, cracking with nitrous oxide delivered and scavenged via a mouthpiece (eight cases); stage 3, cracking with nitrous oxide via a facemask with an air-filled cushion (eight cases); stage 4, cracking with nitrous oxide via a low-profile facemask, and enhanced coaching on the use of the technology (eight cases). The median ambient nitrous oxide levels were 71% lower than baseline in stage 2 and 81% lower in stage 4. Staff feedback was generally positive, though some found the technology to be cumbersome; successful implementation relies on effective staff engagement. Our results indicate that cracking technology can reduce ambient nitrous oxide levels in the obstetric setting, with potential for reductions in environmental impacts and occupational exposure.

Implementation of a new tool to improve the efficacy and safety of surgical handovers.

AIMS: Compliance with European working time regulations in surgical practice has resulted in an increase in the number of clinicians caring for individual patients and subsequently an increase in the frequency of handovers. In 2007, the Royal College of Surgeons of England produced guidelines on the minimum data-set for 'safe handover'. This audit examined compliance with these guidelines before and after adopting a more detailed electronic handover 'template' with the intention of improving handover quality and patient safety. METHODS: Pre-existing surgical 'take' electronic handover sheets were reviewed daily for two weeks to assess compliance with published guidance. A new proforma was introduced, training delivered and compliance re-audited. χ2 analysis was performed to determine statistical significance. RESULTS: The handovers of 118 patients were audited before, and 114 after, the implementation of the new proforma. Name and responsible consultant were recorded in all cases. Age (52% vs. 85%, p=<0.01), location (77% vs. 95%, p=<0.01), admission date (0% vs. 39%, p=<0.01), medical history (82% vs. 94%, p=0.01), diagnosis (55% vs. 93%, p=<0.01) and management plan (81% vs. 97%, p=<0.01) showed a statistically significant improvement with the new proforma. Presenting complaint (93% vs. 98%) and investigation (90% vs. 90%) data remained good. Review frequency (5%vs.11%) and outstanding tasks (21% vs. 27%) were poorly documented. CONCLUSIONS: Significant improvement was seen in the completeness of information handed-over following the introduction of the new proforma with likely positive implications for patient safety and standard of care. Opportunity for improvement still remains however, and more specific focussed tuition for trainees is required.