Search

The subspecialty of obstetric anaesthesiology is different from other subspecialties in anaesthesiology in that, at any point of time, two lives are at stake, making drug errors particularly critical. This narrative review explores the incidence, contributing factors, and preventive strategies for medication errors in Obstetric Anaesthesia. Key contributors of medication errors include distractions, fatigue, look-alike/sound-alike drugs, lack of standardized protocols, poor communication strategies, inadequate training and education. Effective strategies for reducing errors include double-check procedures, bar-coded medication administration systems, implementing "Tall Man lettering for look-alike/sound-alike drugs, structured communication tools, continuous education and training. The review also introduces the mnemonic "SAFE-LABEL CHECK" to encapsulate best practices for minimizing drug errors. Future directions suggest integrating advanced technologies and fostering a multidisciplinary approach to enhance patient safety in obstetric anaesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The response article in the Journal of Obstetric Anaesthesia & Critical Care addresses the prevalence and prevention of medication errors in obstetric anesthesia practice. The authors acknowledge an error in Figure 2 of the original article and have provided a corrected figure in the manuscript. They also discuss the limited availability of studies specifically focused on medication errors in obstetric anesthesia, emphasizing the need for future research in this area to improve patient outcomes. The unique challenges of obstetric anesthesia, such as time-sensitive interventions and frequent interruptions, may increase the risk of medication errors, especially in resource-limited settings. The article highlights the importance of implementing both high-tech and basic safety measures to enhance patient safety in diverse healthcare environments. [Extracted from the article]

Background and Aims: i-gel®, a recently introduced supraglottic airway device (SAD) has been claimed to be an efficient supraglottic airway. It can also be used as a conduit for endotracheal intubation. However, LMA Fastrach® frequently used for this purpose; hence in this randomized study, success rate of blind tracheal intubation through two different SADs i-gel® and LMA Fastrach® was evaluated. The complications if any were also studied. Methods: A total of 100 patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia were randomised in two groups comprising of 50 patients each to tracheal intubation using either i-gel (I group) or LMA Fastrach (F group). After induction of anaesthesia SAD was inserted and on achieving adequate ventilation with the device, blind tracheal intubation was attempted through the SAD. Success at first-attempt and overall tracheal intubation success rates were evaluated, and tracheal intubation time was measured. Data were analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 20.0 software (Statistical Package for Social Sciences by International Business Machines Corporation). P < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: There was no difference in the incidence of adequate ventilation with either of the SAD. The success rate of tracheal intubation in frost attempt was 66% in Group I and 74% in Group F, while overall success rate of tracheal intubation was 82% in Group I when compared to 96% in Group F. Time taken for successful tracheal intubation through LMA Fastrach was lesser (20.96 s) when compared to i-gel (24.04 s). Complication rates were statistically similar in both the groups. Conclusion: i-gel® is a better device for rescue ventilation due to its quick insertion but an inferior intubating device in comparison to LMA Fastrach®. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]