British journal of anaesthesia
-
The concept of using a checklist in surgical and anaesthetic practice was energized by publication of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist in 2008. It was believed that by routinely checking common safety issues, and by better team communication and dynamics, perioperative morbidity and mortality could be improved. ⋯ However, introducing surgical checklists is not as straightforward as it seems, and requires leadership, flexibility, and teamwork in a different way to that which is currently practiced. Future work should be aimed at ensuring effective implementation of the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist, which will benefit our patients on a global scale.
-
Teamwork involves supporting others, solving conflicts, exchanging information, and co-ordinating activities. This article describes the results of interviews with anaesthetic assistants (n=22) and consultant anaesthetists (n=11), investigating the non-technical skills involved in the effective teamwork of the anaesthetic assistants in the operating theatre. Anaesthetic assistants most commonly saw themselves as either being part of a theatre team or an anaesthetic subgroup and most commonly described the senior theatre nurse as their team leader. ⋯ Of the 19 anaesthetic assistants who were asked if they would speak up if they disagreed with a decision in theatre, only 14 said that they would voice their concerns, and the most common approach was to ask for the logic behind the decision. The WHO checklist was described as prompting some anaesthetists to describe their anaesthetic plan to the anaesthetic assistant, when previously the anaesthetist would have failed to communicate their intentions in time for equipment to be prepared. The prioritization of activities to achieve co-ordination and the anaesthetic assistants becoming familiar with the idiosyncrasies of their regular anaesthetists were also described by anaesthetic assistants.
-
Anaesthetic training in the UK has recently experienced significant organizational and politically driven changes. This article examines the effects these changes may have had on the training of anaesthetists and concludes that despite the introduction of changed working patterns and reduced hours over the past decade, academic and professional standards appear to have been maintained, but at the expense of reduced confidence among some trainees. ⋯ While this is clearly important, it understates the added value of consolidation and experience based on repeated exposure. Trainer and trainee surveys suggest that due to perceived service pressures, and worries about patient safety or clinical governance, this important latter stage in professional development is increasingly being omitted from the training programme.
-
The decision of where to start a research project has been influenced by many factors over the years. Tradition has a large impact, but the individual researchers' or clinicians' personal interest has also played a major role. The pharmaceutical industries' interest has without doubt initiated and sponsored many projects in order to get new products onto the market. ⋯ One way of 'mapping' the evidence in order to find out what we know and what we do not know is the production of systematic reviews. Although systematic reviews are considered top of the evidence hierarchy, they are not flawless. The aim of this article is to explain the systematic review and point to some of the challenges in the development and use of systematic reviews.
-
Review
Review of simulation studies in anaesthesia journals, 2001-2010: mapping and content analysis.
Despite widespread adoption of simulation-based training in medical education, there remains scepticism about its cost-effectiveness and long-term impact on patient outcomes. Medical simulation is well established in anaesthesia where it is considered an important educational tool. This review of key clinical anaesthesia literature is used as a case study of clinician uptake within a specialty and to investigate evidence for translational impact using both qualitative and quantitative data. ⋯ Only 10% of these papers include follow-up data from the clinical environment. There is a lack of research examining performance transfer, sustainability, and direct patient outcomes and experiences. These publication patterns are instructive for those involved in medical educational and for other clinical specialties developing simulation.