Trending Articles
-
An editorial on pandemic information overload?
Yep. 😉
But setting aside the irony of adding 2,000 more words on COVID-19 information overload, Kearsley & Duffy neatly explore the challenge:
"Since the outbreak of this pandemic, our e-mail inboxes, social media feeds and even general news outlets have become saturated with new guidelines, revisions of guidelines, new protocols and updated protocols, all subject to constant amendments."
What's the thesis?
The authors' argument is that too much information in the era of COVID may be a bad thing: the marginal benefit of 'more' may be overwhelmed by the negative cost.
They acknowledge the tension between the pragmatic and perfect when it comes to information sources in the face of a rapidly advancing disease – and in particular the recurrent waves of shifting clinical guidelines.
Kearsley & Duffy mention the important role of rapid research, worryingly tempered by a surge in volume, but fall in quality, along with mainstream promotion of non-peer reviewed and pre-print investigations. They note how information technology in the pandemic climate exploits our biases: confirmation, anchoring, and novelty.
At an individual level they discuss the risk of pandemic 'alert fatigue', the growth of social media and excessive information sharing making quality assessment difficult, and the negative effect of both on well-being.
The take-home
We each have significant personal responsibility to consider the consequences when sharing information, especially if incomplete or risk of misunderstanding when stripped of context.
summary"As we learn to live with this virus it is important for us to be cognisant that we are all at risk of error; we need to work to reduce information overload and focus on unifying our approach to both information dissemination and presentation. We must go back to basics and apply the well-practiced human factors principles of good teamwork, communication and leadership.
...
We need to avoid a situation where a crisis is overmanaged and underlead; “Ipsa scientia potestas est" or 'knowledge itself is power' – from what COVID-19 is teaching us however, can too much knowledge be a bad thing?"
-
Deep neuromuscular block did not improve quality of recovery after laparoscopic surgery.
pearl -
Randomized Controlled Trial
Randomised controlled trial of sugammadex or neostigmine for reversal of neuromuscular block on the incidence of pulmonary complications in older adults undergoing prolonged surgery.
Sugammadex used for NMBD reversal in older adults after prolonged surgery reduced residual blockade but did not reduce pulmonary complications when compared to neostigmine.
pearl -
Anesthesia and analgesia · Apr 2020
Nasolaryngeal Distances in the Adult Population and an Evaluation of Commercially Available Nasotracheal Tubes.
Nasolaryngeal distance can be reliably predicted using:
NLD (mm) = 1.1 × body height (cm) – 13.2
pearl -
Five percent of adult patients undergoing noncardiac inpatient surgery experience a major pulmonary complication. The authors hypothesized that the choice of neuromuscular blockade reversal (neostigmine vs. sugammadex) may be associated with a lower incidence of major pulmonary complications. ⋯ Among a generalizable cohort of adult patients undergoing inpatient surgery at U.S. hospitals, the use of sugammadex was associated with a clinically and statistically significant lower incidence of major pulmonary complications.