Search

Background: Simulation has been used to investigate clinical questions in anesthesia, surgery, and related disciplines, but there are few data demonstrating that results apply to clinical settings. We asked "would results of a simulation-based study justify the same principal conclusions as those of a larger clinical study?", Methods: We compared results from a randomized controlled trial in a simulated environment involving 80 cases at three centers with those from a randomized controlled trial in a clinical environment involving 1,075 cases. In both studies, we compared conventional methods of anesthetic management with the use of a multimodal system (SAFERsleep; Safer Sleep LLC, Nashville, Tennessee) designed to reduce drug administration errors. Forty anesthesiologists each managed two simulated scenarios randomized to conventional methods or the new system. We compared the rate of error in drug administration or recording for the new system versus conventional methods in this simulated randomized controlled trial with that in the clinical randomized controlled trial (primary endpoint). Six experts were asked to indicate a clinically relevant effect size., Results: In this simulated randomized controlled trial, mean (95% CI) rates of error per 100 administrations for the new system versus conventional groups were 6.0 (3.8 to 8.3) versus 11.6 (9.3 to 13.8; P = 0.001) compared with 9.1 (6.9 to 11.4) versus 11.6 (9.3 to 13.9) in the clinical randomized controlled trial (P = 0.045). A 10 to 30% change was considered clinically relevant. The mean (95% CI) difference in effect size was 27.0% (-7.6 to 61.6%)., Conclusions: The results of our simulated randomized controlled trial justified the same primary conclusion as those of our larger clinical randomized controlled trial, but not a finding of equivalence in effect size.

Obstetric haemorrhage is a leading cause of maternal death and the most common contributor to serious obstetric morbidity. Maternal mortality audit data suggest that appropriate preparation and good emergency management leads to improved outcome. The aim of this study was to assess facilities relevant to major obstetric haemorrhage management in all units in Australia and New Zealand that offer operative obstetric services. The questionnaire was divided into ten sections: demographics, facilities, staffing, policies and guidelines, drugs, procedures, equipment, point of care testing, availability of O negative blood and free comments. Responses were received from 240 (76.4%) of the 314 hospitals surveyed (187 public and 53 private). One hundred and nine units (45%) had fewer than 500 deliveries per year Distances to referral facilities were frequently very large. Of the 90 hospitals (38.1%) without an onsite blood bank, 12 did not have a supply of blood for emergencies. Half of all units (n=121) had on-site intensive care or high dependency facilities and 72.9% (n=175) had an on-site cardiac arrest team. Only 58.8% of units (n=141) had a written haemorrhage protocol. Findings are presented in the context of other literature, including evidence-based guidelines. Haemorrhage responds well to appropriate treatment, although careful preparation and anticipation of problems is required. In our region geographical factors and different systems of healthcare complicate provision of obstetric services. Where facilities are limited, women should be offered antenatal transfer to a larger centre.

Eight hundred and ninety-six incidents relating to drug error were reported to the Australian Incident Monitoring Study. Syringe and drug preparation errors accounted for 452 (50.4%) incidents, including 169 (18.9%) involving syringe swaps where the drug was correctly labelled but given in error, and 187 (20.8%) due to selection of the wrong ampoule or drug labelling errors. The drugs most commonly involved were neuromuscular blocking agents, followed by opioids. Equipment misuse or malfunction accounted for a further 234 (26.1%) incidents; incorrect route of administration 126 (14.1%) incidents; and communication error 35 (3.9%) incidents. The outcomes of these events included minor morbidity in 105 (11.7%), major morbidity in 42 (4.7%), death in three (0.3%) and awareness under anaesthesia in 40 (4.4%) incidents. Contributing factors included inattention, haste, drug labelling error, communication failure and fatigue. Factors minimising the events were prior experience and training, rechecking equipment and monitors capable of detecting the incident. The information gained suggests areas where improved guidelines are required to reduce the incidence of drug error. Further research is required into the effectiveness of preventive strategies.

A study was conducted to determine the ability of junior anaesthetists to check the anaesthetic machine, demonstrate a knowledge of a multifunction monitor and a defibrillator, and know the hospital fire drill. The subjects were 38 junior anaesthetists working in a large multi-disciplinary teaching hospital. 45% were able to check the anaesthetic machine according to the guidelines of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, and 16% had a complete working knowledge of the monitor. All subjects could use the defibrillator but only 24% could adequately solve the problem of malfunction. Only one subject had a working knowledge of the fire drill; excluding knowledge of the fire drill only 3 subjects (8%) satisfactorily completed all aspects of the assessment. As a result of this study structured checking routines are being introduced into anaesthetic teaching and practice and a similar multi-center study of specialist anaesthetists is being planned.

Introduction: One part of morbidity and mortality associated with anesthesia is due to accidents. It is thought that an additional monitoring can prevent and avoid most of anesthetic accidents., Objectives: In order to improve patient's safety and quality of anesthesia, Harvard University hospital approved in 1985 the rules for intraoperative monitoring. These were adopted by the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) in 1986. In line with this procedure, professional associations of several countries pronounced their own rules. SEDAR did it in 1989. The purpose of this study was to compare spanish rules with those of America (Harvard and ASA), Australia, England and France., Results: Comparative analysis revealed that the spanish norms are more extensive since they include not only the intraoperative anesthetic activities, but also those related to recovery, pain, and obstetric anesthesia. However, it has some deficiencies such as the lack of a periodical revision, and of an adaptative period and assistance to the anesthesiologist provided by auxiliary personnel. Successful points were the recognition that pulse oximetry is essential, the preoperative verification of all material, and, more importantly, is the only one that considers essential capnography in the assessment of ventilation and pulse oximetry during regional anesthesia and postoperative phase., Conclusion: Spanish norm is comparable to that of the other countries considered in this study. It shows important successful points and at the same time some significant deficiencies.

A survey of the patients' view of anaesthesia was carried out in a medium-sized metropolitan private hospital. The study was performed using a postoperative questionnaire. A two-week period was investigated, and data was obtained from 121 of 124 patients anaesthetised during that period. The results showed a very high degree of satisfaction with the anaesthetic services provided, although specific questioning revealed many minor complaints. The results are compared with previous studies done in public hospitals and show that from the patients' perspective, there were fewer complaints than have been noted in the other studies.