Anaesthesia
-
Multicenter Study
The use of capnography and the availability of airway equipment on Intensive Care Units in the UK and the Republic of Ireland.
At least 20% of reported major adverse airway events occur on the intensive care unit. This study surveyed 315 (96%) of all general, satellite, hepatobiliary, cardiac and neuro-intensive care units in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, finding that only 100 (32%) units always use capnography for tracheal intubation while only 80 (25%) always use capnography for continuous monitoring of patients requiring controlled ventilation. ⋯ Whilst 297 (94%) ICUs have an airway trolley, sufficient equipment for unanticipated difficult intubation was only seen on 33 (10%) of units. Guidelines addressing minimum standards for monitoring and airway safety on ICU are not being met and remain below the standard expected.
-
Multicenter Study Controlled Clinical Trial
Clinical assessment of a new anaesthetic drug administration system: a prospective, controlled, longitudinal incident monitoring study.
An interesting and thought-provoking study, even with its flaws.
The authors concluded that system changes surrounding anaesthetic drug delivery reduce medication error.
A ‘care bundle’ approach was taken to improve drug safety through system design and human factors considerations:
- Coloured drug labels with barcodes.
- Computerised drug crosscheck.
- Computerised allergy and drug expiration alerts.
- Re-organised anaesthesia workplace, focusing on the drug administration workflow.
- Prefilled syringes for: calcium chloride, ephredrine, fentanyl, lidocaine, magnesium sulphate, metaraminol, midazolam, neostigmine, and pancuronium.
- Automated computerised anaesthetic record.
But the problems...
No randomisation, no blinding, observational study, completely voluntary use of the safety system and self-reporting of errors...
Were the improvements due to the intervention, or simply a greater interest and priority given to anaesthetic safety? (Would it matter?)
In only 15% of anaesthetics was the new system (voluntarily) used, and thus may represent anaesthetists more motivated to prioritise medication safety over convenience or convention.
Finally error is being used (not unreasonably) as a surrogate marker for patient harm. (Although the authors did try to sneak in... “a non-significant reduction (p=0.055) in the harm attributable to drug administration error” 🙄)
Final word of caution
Even this quite impressive system was not immune to error. There were 19 cases of violation of the video and/or audio crosscheck before drug administration. Automated safety systems are obviously no panacea.
Additionally, although there was an observed reduction in all drug errors, there was no reduction specifically in drug substitution error.
Nonetheless a refreshing and novel approach to anaesthetic drug safety, beyond the typical admonishment to just be safer.
More on the system used:
- Webster (2001): The frequency and nature of drug administration error during anaesthesia
- Merry (2001): A new, safety-oriented, integrated drug administration and automated anesthesia record system
- Webster (2004): A prospective, randomised clinical evaluation of a new safety-orientated injectable drug administration system in comparison with conventional methods.