Recovery process and determinants of adverse event occurrence in bronchoscopic procedures performed under general anaesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: Regarding the fact that rigid bronchoscopy is generally performed under general anaesthesia and this patient subgroup is remarkably morbid, encountering procedure and/or anaesthesia related complications are highly likely. Here, we aimed to assess factors influencing recovery and detect possible determinants of adverse event occurrence during these operations performed in a tertiary referral centre. METHODS: Eighty-one consecutive ASA I-IV patients were recruited for this investigation. In the operating theatre after induction of anaesthesia and advancement of the device, maintenance was provided with total intravenous anaesthesia. Neuromuscular blockage was invariably administered, and patients were ventilated manually. In addition to preoperative demographic and procedural characteristics, perioperative hemodynamic variables, recovery times and observed adverse events were noted. RESULTS: Basic demographic properties, ASA and Mallampati scores, and procedure specific variables as lesion localization, lesion and procedure type were comparable among groups assembled with reference to event occurrence. Patients who had experienced adverse event had higher heart rates. Recovery times were comparable between Event (-) and Event (+) groups. Relationship of recovery process were individually tested with all variables and only lesion type was detected to have an effect on respiration and extubation times. Among all parameters only procedural time seemed to be associated with adverse event occurrence (mins, 22.9 ± 11.9 vs 41.6 ± 28.8, P < .001). CONCLUSION: Recovery times related with return of spontaneous respiration were significantly lower in procedures performed for treatment of tumoral diseases in this study and procedure length was determined to be the ultimate factor which had an impact on adverse event occurrence.

Critical Incident Reporting System in Teaching Hospitals in Turkey: A Survey Study.

OBJECTIVE: Critical incident reporting systems (CIRS) and morbidity-mortality meetings (MMMs) offer the advantages of identifying potential risks in patients. They are key tools in improving patient safety in healthcare systems by modifying the attitudes of clinicians, nurses and staff (human error) and also the system (human and/or technical error) according to the analysis and the results of incidents. METHODS: One anaesthetist assigned to an administrative and/or teaching position from all university hospitals (UHs) and training and research hospitals (TRHs) of Turkey (n=114) was contacted. In this survey study, we analysed the facilities of anaesthetists in Turkish UHs and TRHs with respect to CIRS and MMMs and also the anaesthetists' knowledge, experience and attitudes regarding CIs. RESULTS: Anaesthetists from 81 of 114 teaching hospitals replied to our survey. Although 96.3% of anaesthetists indicated CI reporting as a necessity, only 37% of departments/hospitals were reported to have CIRS. True definition of CI as "an unexpected /accidental event" was achieved by 23.3% of anaesthetists with CIRS. MMMs were reported in 60.5% of hospitals. Nevertheless, 96% of anaesthetists believe that CIRS and MMMs decrease the incidence of CI occurring. CI occurrence was attributed to human error as 4 [1-5]/10 and 3 [1-5]/10 in UHs and TRHs, respectively (p=0.005). In both hospital types, technical errors were evaluated as 3 [1-5]/10 (p=0.498). CONCLUSION: This first study regarding CIRS in the Turkish anaesthesia departments/hospitals highlights the lack of CI knowledge and CIRS awareness and use in anaesthesia departments/teaching hospitals in Turkey despite a safety reporting system set up by the Turkish Ministry of Health.