Anaesthetic records: an evaluation of variation across England

IF 0.8 Q3 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesia reports Pub Date : 2024-03-25 DOI:10.1002/anr3.12287
R. Fenton, C. Thompson, S. Drake, L. Foley, T. M. Cook
{"title":"Anaesthetic records: an evaluation of variation across England","authors":"R. Fenton,&nbsp;C. Thompson,&nbsp;S. Drake,&nbsp;L. Foley,&nbsp;T. M. Cook","doi":"10.1002/anr3.12287","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>We collected blank non-specialist anaesthetic records from 71 National Health Service Trusts in England. A data set was established by collating all data items found in an initial tranche of 28 records. All 71 records were subsequently analysed for each data item in this data set. We found significant variation: the most populated record included 216 data items and the least included 38 data items: a greater than five-fold variation. There was significant variation in the inclusion of data items commonly considered important to patient safety; 42% of records omitted documentation of fasting status, 72% omitted documentation of a discussion around the risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, 92% omitted documentation of quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring and 63% omitted documentation for ‘Stop Before You Block’ when performing regional anaesthesia. The study highlights significant variability in the composition of anaesthetic records across England which may impact on its value as a data repository, an action trigger, a medicolegal account, and a tool to facilitate safe handover. Standardisation of the anaesthetic record or the establishment of standards of recording would help to allay potential risks to patient safety and assist in guiding future procurement of electronic solutions for anaesthetic records.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":72186,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia reports","volume":"12 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anr3.12287","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

We collected blank non-specialist anaesthetic records from 71 National Health Service Trusts in England. A data set was established by collating all data items found in an initial tranche of 28 records. All 71 records were subsequently analysed for each data item in this data set. We found significant variation: the most populated record included 216 data items and the least included 38 data items: a greater than five-fold variation. There was significant variation in the inclusion of data items commonly considered important to patient safety; 42% of records omitted documentation of fasting status, 72% omitted documentation of a discussion around the risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia, 92% omitted documentation of quantitative neuromuscular blockade monitoring and 63% omitted documentation for ‘Stop Before You Block’ when performing regional anaesthesia. The study highlights significant variability in the composition of anaesthetic records across England which may impact on its value as a data repository, an action trigger, a medicolegal account, and a tool to facilitate safe handover. Standardisation of the anaesthetic record or the establishment of standards of recording would help to allay potential risks to patient safety and assist in guiding future procurement of electronic solutions for anaesthetic records.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
麻醉记录:对英格兰各地差异的评估
我们从英格兰 71 家国民健康服务托管机构收集了空白的非专科麻醉记录。通过整理首批 28 份记录中的所有数据项,我们建立了一个数据集。随后对所有 71 份记录中的每个数据项进行了分析。我们发现差异很大:最多的记录包括 216 个数据项,最少的记录包括 38 个数据项:差异超过五倍。在纳入通常被认为对患者安全非常重要的数据项方面存在显著差异;42% 的记录遗漏了有关禁食状态的记录,72% 的记录遗漏了有关全身麻醉期间意外意识风险讨论的记录,92% 的记录遗漏了定量神经肌肉阻滞监测的记录,63% 的记录遗漏了实施区域麻醉时 "阻滞前停止 "的记录。该研究强调了英格兰各地麻醉记录构成的显著差异,这可能会影响其作为数据储存库、行动触发器、医疗法律账户和促进安全交接工具的价值。麻醉记录的标准化或记录标准的建立将有助于降低患者安全的潜在风险,并有助于指导未来麻醉记录电子解决方案的采购。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Hybrid closed loop technology in emergency surgery in a person with type 1 diabetes Ultrasonography guided modified Sellick manoeuvre in post-oesophagectomy patients – a case series* Epidural spread of injectate from a costoclavicular catheter due to selective lodging in the middle trunk Anaesthetic management of a large multi-nodular goitre with dynamic bilateral carotid artery compression Epidural analgesia in an obstetric patient with an intradural lipoma
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1