Anaesthesia and intensive care
-
Anaesth Intensive Care · Jan 2012
Laptops and smartphones in the operating theatre - how does our knowledge of vigilance, multi-tasking and anaesthetist performance help us in our approach to this new distraction?
There has been no research performed concerning the effects of the use of laptops and smartphones in the operating theatre on anaesthetist performance, yet these devices are now in frequent use. This article explores the implications of this phenomenon. The cognitive and environmental factors that support or detract from vigilance and multi-tasking are explored and core anaesthetic literature on the nature of anaesthetic work and operating theatre distractions is reviewed. ⋯ All anaesthetists need to be mindful of the limits to the human attention span which requires observation and limiting distractions. Trainees have less experience and less 'attentional' safety margin, so should avoid adding additional distractions such as discretionary use of laptops or smartphones to their operating theatre work. We provide recommendations for future research on the specific advantages and disadvantages of pervasive computing in the operative theatre.
-
The aim of this study was to explore the degree and determinants of satisfaction of family members of patients being cared for in an Australasian intensive care unit. This was a prospective observational study that took place within a mixed medical/surgical, level three intensive care unit. One hundred and eight family members of patients staying in the intensive care for more than 48 hours were identified. ⋯ Families who had meetings with the social worker or medical staff were less likely to report dissatisfaction (relative risk 0.14; confidence interval 0.03 to 0.59; P=0.08; relative risk 0.23; confidence interval 0.07 to 0.81; P=0.02). Our study found that the majority of families are happy with their care in the intensive care unit. Social work and medical meetings with the family reduce dissatisfaction.
-
Anaesth Intensive Care · Jan 2012
Review Meta Analysis Comparative StudyBenefits and risks of using gelatin solution as a plasma expander for perioperative and critically ill patients: a meta-analysis.
This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the benefits and risks of gelatin solutions compared to other intravenous fluids for patients in perioperative and critical care settings. Of the 66 studies identified from MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, 30 randomised controlled trials involving 2709 patients met the inclusion criteria and were subject to meta-analysis. The risk of mortality (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.32) and amount of blood loss (weighted-mean-difference 7.56 ml, 95% confidence interval 18.75 to 33.87) were not significantly different between patients who were treated with gelatin solutions and other types of intravenous fluids. ⋯ These findings suggest that using gelatin solutions is associated with a lower risk of acute renal failure compared to older starches. Using gelatin as a plasma expander appears to have no significant advantages over crystalloids or isotonic albumin on mortality and may have a slightly higher risk of requiring allogeneic blood transfusion in perioperative and critically ill patients. An adequately powered randomised controlled trial with economic analysis is needed before gelatin solution can be recommended as a routine plasma expander for patients undergoing major surgery or who are critically ill.
-
Anaesth Intensive Care · Jan 2012
Randomized Controlled Trial Comparative StudyPostoperative plasma paracetamol levels following oral or intravenous paracetamol administration: a double-blind randomised controlled trial.
In day-case surgery paracetamol is commonly given orally preoperatively, or intravenously intraoperatively. In this double-blind randomised controlled trial we investigated which of these methods of administration achieved therapeutic plasma levels most effectively in the early postoperative period. Thirty patients undergoing day case arthroscopy of the knee were randomised to receive either 1.0 g oral paracetamol 30 to 60 minutes preoperatively (20 patients) or 1.0 g intravenous paracetamol intraoperatively (10 patients). ⋯ There was no difference in pain scores between groups. Intraoperative administration of 1.0 g of intravenous paracetamol more reliably achieved effective paracetamol levels in the early postoperative period compared to an equal dose given orally preoperatively. Only a minority of patients receiving the 1.0 g oral dose preoperatively had plasma levels in the therapeutic analgesic range.