An observational feasibility study of a new anaesthesia drug storage tray.

Drug errors in the anaesthetic domain remain a serious cause of iatrogenic harm. To help reduce this issue, we explored the potential safety impact of using a simple colour-coded tray for anaesthetic drug preparation and storage. Over a six-month period, three different trained researchers observed 30 cases at three NHS Trusts. Ten observations involved standard drug trays in 'normal' practice, and 20 observations, involved 'Rainbow trays' before and after their introduction. We conducted 20 semi-structured interviews immediately after completing the Rainbow tray observation with the anaesthetists involved. All discussions and detailed notes taken were transcribed, qualitatively analysed using line-by-line coding and then synthesised into narrative themes. We found that using standard, single compartment trays enabled quick, cheap, and portable drug preparation and storage, but was linked to potential or actual harmful errors, such as syringe swaps. Rainbow trays were perceived to be easy to use and effective at all three sites, aiding drug identification and separation, and hence likely to reduce drug error and increase patient safety. We have demonstrated that it is feasible to introduce a new colour-coded compartmentalised Rainbow drugs tray into clinical practice at three NHS hospitals in England. Further research is needed into their effect on the prevalence of drug error.

Responsiveness of the EQ-5D health-related quality-of-life instrument in assessing low back pain.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the responsiveness of the EuroQol five-dimensional questionnaire (EQ-5D) generic quality-of-life instrument with that of specific instruments-the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)-in assessing low back pain. METHODS: Data were obtained from a group of patients receiving epidural steroid injections. We assessed responsiveness by using correlation, by estimating standardized response means, by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, and by comparing the minimum clinically important differences peculiar to each of the instruments. RESULTS: ODI, BPI, and EQ-5D index scores, and changes in scores, were found to be correlated. Estimated standardized response means and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis suggested lower responsiveness for the EQ-5D index score. Clinically significant categories of mild, moderate, and severe BPI pain intensity translated into progressively and significantly lower mean EQ-5D index scores. An increase or a decrease in severity level reported on any of the five EQ-5D dimensions was associated with significant changes (with appropriate signs) in the condition-specific scores. No change in severity in any EQ-5D dimension was associated with no change in the specific scores. Significant changes in the EQ-5D index scores were associated with clinically important changes in the ODI and BPI scores. Correlation between index scores and responses on EQ-5D's visual analogue scale was only moderate. CONCLUSIONS: The EQ-5D index is less responsive than instruments specific to pain measurement, although it is capable of indicating clinically important changes. The lower responsiveness arises from EQ-5D's more limited gradation of severity and its multidimensionality.

Distractions and the anaesthetist: a qualitative study of context and direction of distraction.

BACKGROUND: Distractions are cited as contributory to healthcare-associated errors in a large proportion of incidents including those involving anaesthetists. The anaesthetist is relatively understudied, despite the closer coupling between action and outcome than in surgery. METHODS: After formal regulatory approval, we undertook an observational study using a validated rating scale for the observed effect of distractions. We also recorded the parties involved, the relative urgency of the distraction and the likely benefit or harm to the initiator and recipient. RESULTS: Thirty-two separate surgical operations were observed. Median case duration was 103 min (range 22-227 min). 3557 potentially distracting events were observed, of which 1173 (33%) were deemed to score ≥ 2 on the distraction scale (i.e. caused distraction). Of these 3557 events, 1227 involved the anaesthetist either as an initiator of a potential/actual distraction, or the recipient of an actual distraction. The commonest initiators of distraction were the circulating nurse (832/3557) and the anaesthetist (816/3557). Sixty distracting events were observed while the anaesthetist was preparing or administering drugs (~2 per case). Of the 60 drug-related distracting events, 26 were initiated by the anaesthetist, and 3 of 7 airway events. CONCLUSIONS: Distracting events involving the anaesthetist are common, but approximately two-thirds of these events have no externally visible effect. Another anaesthetist was the most common recipient of a distracting event initiated by the anaesthetist. Anaesthetists need to address themselves as causes of distractions and the potential impact on patient safety.

A pilot study of the dose-response of caudal methylprednisolone with levobupivacaine in chronic lower back pain.

The question as to what constitutes the ideal epidural steroid injection remains unresolved. We performed a prospective, randomised, double-blind, AB/BA 2 × 2 crossover study of caudal 40 vs 80 mg methylprednisolone acetate (in 20 ml levobupivacaine 0.125%) in outpatients with chronic low back pain. Data from 33 participants were analysed. The Oswestry Disability Index improved in both dose groups over time following injection. However, a statistically significant improvement was only observed in the 40 mg methylprednisolone acetate group (40 mg: p < 0.001; 80 mg: p = 0.33). There was no statistically significant difference between the dose groups in change in the Oswestry Disability Index with respect to time. Methylprednisolone acetate 40 mg appears to be as effective as 80 mg in improving disability associated with chronic low back pain, and should be considered in preference to the 80 mg dose for outpatients with chronic low back pain attending for repeat caudal steroid injection.

Confirming the drugs administered during anaesthesia: a feasibility study in the pilot National Health Service sites, UK.

BACKGROUND: To help prevent drug errors, it is recommended that drugs should be confirmed/checked with a second person before administration. We aimed to assess the feasibility of introducing second-person or electronic bar-code confirmation of drugs, administered during anaesthesia, in the National Health Service (NHS) settings in the UK. METHODS: Seven NHS sites took part in a pilot study over a 3 month period. Five used a second-person and two used bar-code electronic confirmation of drugs given during anaesthesia. A total of 36 consultant anaesthetists and three trainees, 15 operating department practitioners (ODPs), and seven anaesthetic nurses participated. A group of anaesthetists, ODPs, and nurse practitioners (n=11) from different NHS sites independently observed both methodologies. In addition, each site was visited and observed by one of the study investigators. At the end of the study period, four focus groups (two with participants from pilot sites and two with observers) were held. The discussions were taped, transcribed, and qualitatively analysed. Data were triangulated using observer's notes and investigator's reflective diaries, and processed using line-by-line coding. The codes were then synthesized into themes. RESULTS: Both methods were perceived to contribute to the prevention of drug errors. For the two-person confirmation to be carried out correctly, there should be no distraction or time pressure. The main limitation to the feasibility was that the continuous presence of the second person was not always possible. The process also met with resistance from the staff at some pilot sites. Electronic confirmation was always feasible, as it did not require the presence of a second person. It was found to be intuitive to the anaesthetist's current working practice. However, there were some practical issues related to introduction of new technology and an initial learning curve. CONCLUSIONS: The introduction of two-person confirmation to the NHS would have a significant impact on the existing working practices. Issues related to resources and a cultural change will need to be addressed. Electronic confirmation was more feasible, but the technological aspects of its integration into the operating theatre environment, and learning, will require further attention.