Search

Healthcare today is the prerogative of teams rather than of individuals. In acute care domains such as anaesthesia, intensive care, and emergency medicine, the work is complex and fast-paced, and the team members are diverse and interdependent. Three decades of research into the behaviours of high-performing teams provides us with clear guidance on team training, demonstrating positive effects on patient safety and staff wellbeing. Here we consider team performance through the lens of situation awareness. Maintaining situation awareness is an absolute requirement for safe and effective patient management. Situation awareness is a dynamic process of perceiving cues in the environment, understanding what they mean, and predicting how the situation may evolve. In the context of acute clinical care, situation awareness can be improved if the whole team actively contributes to monitoring the environment, processing information, and planning next steps. In this narrative review, we explore the concept of situation awareness at the level of the team, the conditions required to maintain team situation awareness, and the relationship between team situation awareness, shared mental models, and team performance. Our ultimate goal is to help clinicians create the conditions required for high-functioning teams, and ultimately improve the safety of clinical care., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

We review the development of technology in anaesthesia over the course of the past century, from the invention of the Boyle apparatus to the modern anaesthetic workstation with artificial intelligence assistance. We define the operating theatre as a socio-technical system, being necessarily comprised of human and technological parts, the ongoing development of which has led to a reduction in mortality during anaesthesia by an order of four magnitudes over a century. The remarkable technological advances in anaesthesia have been accompanied by important paradigm shifts in the approach to patient safety, and we describe the inter-relationship between technology and the human work environment in the development of such paradigm shifts, including the systems approach and organisational resilience. A better understanding of emerging technological advances and their effects on patient safety will allow anaesthesia to continue to be a leader in both patient safety and in the design of equipment and workspaces., (Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: CSW is a minor shareholder in SAFERsleep LLC, a company that manufactures an anaesthesia record system. JMW is a member of the editorial board of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. ST and CT declare no conflicts of interest.

Competing Interests: CSW is a minor shareholder in SaferSleep LLC, a company that manufactures an anaesthesia record system. JMW is a member of the editorial board of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. ST has no potential conflicts to declare.

Background: Anaesthetic medication administration errors are a significant threat to patient safety. In 2002, we began collecting data about the rate and nature of anaesthetic medication errors and implemented a variety of measures to reduce errors., Methods: Facilitated self-reporting of errors was carried out in 2002-2003. Subsequently, a medication safety bundle including 'smart' infusion pumps were implemented. During 2014 facilitated self-reporting commenced again. A barcode-based medication safety system was then implemented and the facilitated self-reporting was continued through 2015., Results: During 2002-2003, a total of 11 709 paper forms were returned. There were 73 reports of errors (0.62% of anaesthetics) and 27 reports of intercepted errors (0.23%). During 2014, 14 572 computerised forms were completed. There were 57 reports of errors (0.39%) and 11 reports of intercepted errors (0.075%). Errors associated with medication infusions were reduced in comparison with those recorded in 2002-2003 (P<0.001). The rate of syringe swap error was also reduced (P=0.001). The reduction in error rate between 2002-2003 and 2014 was statistically significant (P=0.0076 and P=0.001 for errors and intercepted errors, respectively). From December 2014 through December 2015, 24 264 computerised forms were completed after implementation of a barcode-based medication safety system. There were 56 reports of errors (0.23%) and six reports of intercepted errors (0.025%). Vial swap errors in 2014-2015 were significantly reduced compared with those in 2014 (P=0.004). The reduction in error rate after implementation of the barcode-based medication safety system was statistically significant (P=0.0045 and P=0.021 for errors and intercepted errors, respectively)., Conclusions: Reforms intended to reduce medication errors were associated with substantial improvement., (Copyright © 2018 British Journal of Anaesthesia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: A previous study showed less postoperative neurocognitive impairment in open-chamber cardiac surgery patients given lidocaine for 48 hours after induction of anesthesia. In the present study, we aimed to test the benefit of a 12-hour infusion in a broader group of cardiac surgery patients, including those undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery., Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, intention-to-treat trial. Before cardiac surgery, 158 patients completed 7 neurocognitive tests and a self-rating scale for memory. They received a 12-hour infusion of either lidocaine in a standard antiarrhythmic dose or placebo, beginning at induction of anesthesia. The cognitive tests and memory scale were repeated at postoperative weeks 10 and 25. A deficit in any cognitive test was defined as a decline in score by more than or equal to the preoperative group standard deviation., Results: All tests were completed by 118 and 107 patients at 10 and 25 weeks, respectively. The proportions of patients in the lidocaine and placebo groups exhibiting a deficit in one or more tests were as follows: 45.8% versus 40.7% at 10 weeks, and 35.2% versus 37.7% at 25 weeks (not significant). There were no significant differences between groups in self-ratings of memory function or length of intensive care unit or hospital stay., Conclusions: Lidocaine was not neuroprotective. The result of the previous trial may represent a type 1 error. Alternatively, benefit may be more likely for open-chamber surgery patients exposed to larger numbers of emboli or with a longer lidocaine infusion.

After different methods of hand preparation, volunteers rolled segments of sterile central venous catheter between their fingertips, and bacterial transfer was evaluated by standardized quantitative culture. The number of bacteria transferred differed between methods (P<0.001). Comparisons were made with the control group (no preparation at all; median, third quartile and maximum count=6.5, 24, 55). Bacterial transfer was greatly increased with wet hands (1227, 1932, 3254; P<0.001). It was reduced with a new rapid method, based on thorough drying with a combination of 10 s using a cloth towel followed by either 10 or 20 s with a hot-air towel (0, 3, 7 and 0, 4, 30, respectively; P=0.007 and 0.004, respectively). When asked to follow their personal routines, 10 consultant anaesthetists used a range of methods. Collectively, these were not significantly better than control (7.5, 15, 55; P=0.73), and neither was an air towel alone (2.5, 15, 80; P=0.176) nor the hospital's standard procedure (0, 1, 500; P=0.035). If hand preparation is needed, an adequate and validated method should be used, together with thorough hand drying.