Time for mandatory safety preparedness: a responsibility for individuals, hospitals and national bodies

IF 6.9 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-08-12 DOI:10.1111/anae.16418
Andrew D. Kane, Jasmeet Soar, Tim M. Cook
{"title":"Time for mandatory safety preparedness: a responsibility for individuals, hospitals and national bodies","authors":"Andrew D. Kane,&nbsp;Jasmeet Soar,&nbsp;Tim M. Cook","doi":"10.1111/anae.16418","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Most of the time, anaesthesia in the UK is practiced and delivered safely. However, emergencies or serious complications associated with anaesthesia do occur, with potentially devastating consequences for patients, their families and staff. Although anaesthetic emergencies are usually managed well, national reports consistently identify room for improvement. For example, despite high-profile cases, unrecognised oesophageal intubation still occurs in the UK, causing harm (including death) and is preventable [<span>1</span>].</p><p>Data from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) have shown anaesthesia and surgery to be very safe (risk of death during elective surgery if a patient is of ASA physical status 1–2 is around 1 in 100,000 cases) but also that life-threatening events are not that uncommon (one or more potentially serious complications in 1 in 18 cases, cardiac arrest in 1 in 3000 and close to 1 in 1000 in patients who are older and frailer) [<span>2</span>]. More than half of cardiac arrests are caused by low occurrence, high impact events (haemorrhage, severe bradycardia, cardiac ischaemia, isolated hypotension, hypoxaemia and anaphylaxis) [<span>3</span>]. Unrecognised oesophageal intubation remains an unmeasured and too prevalent problem. Care was often imperfect, being judged (when assessable) to include poor care in 40% of cases before the event and in 36% of cases overall.</p><p>It is too easy to believe that rare things do not happen to us or our patients, but this view could not be further from the truth. The approximately 24,000 cases reported to the NAP7 activity survey are comparable in volume to the annual throughput of some larger NHS sites. Based on that survey data and from NAP4 4 and NAP6, these centres would see a case of profound hypotension five times a week, two major haemorrhages a week, laryngospasm every other day, aspiration twice a month, 2–3 life-threatening anaphylactic reactions a year, eight cardiac arrests and several peri-operative deaths [<span>2, 3</span>]. Emergencies are happening all around us. Even if they do not happen to the patient directly under our care.</p><p>Nathanson et al. call for mandatory training to focus on low occurrence, high impact events [<span>4</span>]. Many of these have been the focus of previous National Audit Projects. Many may consider the view of Nathanson et al. the right thing to do, but it may not be universally popular and would represent a revolution in mandatory training in the UK. There have already been calls for significant overhauls of mandatory training [<span>5</span>]. What is mandatory, what is statutory and what is fruitful, do not always overlap. However, what needs to be designed, delivered and implemented must be just right; effective but not burdensome. It must be built from solid evidence and be of value and not tokenistic.</p><p>An important challenge arises regarding who should drive such a change. The Royal College of Anaesthetists takes the view that it cannot mandate the actions of its members but, conversely, it holds the baton for professional standards, and must, therefore, take a lead. The Association of Anaesthetists has a long history of promoting safety and improving standards through guidelines. We recommend that a task force is established by the College and Association. The NHS should be centrally engaged and committed. Representation from specialist societies, surgeons, patients and experts in human factors, education and implementation science will be essential. The core emergencies should be agreed on and delivery modalities tested. It must be adequately funded, and the efficacy rigorously evaluated. Lessons should be learnt from Australia and New Zealand, where such a programme already exists, and any programme should apply to the NHS and the independent sector. Only through a genuine commitment (nationally, by organisations and departments) to maintain a level of preparedness for anaesthetists, teams and departments can we manage these low occurrence, high impact events better and improve patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":7742,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesia","volume":"80 1","pages":"121-122"},"PeriodicalIF":6.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/anae.16418","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.16418","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Most of the time, anaesthesia in the UK is practiced and delivered safely. However, emergencies or serious complications associated with anaesthesia do occur, with potentially devastating consequences for patients, their families and staff. Although anaesthetic emergencies are usually managed well, national reports consistently identify room for improvement. For example, despite high-profile cases, unrecognised oesophageal intubation still occurs in the UK, causing harm (including death) and is preventable [1].

Data from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) have shown anaesthesia and surgery to be very safe (risk of death during elective surgery if a patient is of ASA physical status 1–2 is around 1 in 100,000 cases) but also that life-threatening events are not that uncommon (one or more potentially serious complications in 1 in 18 cases, cardiac arrest in 1 in 3000 and close to 1 in 1000 in patients who are older and frailer) [2]. More than half of cardiac arrests are caused by low occurrence, high impact events (haemorrhage, severe bradycardia, cardiac ischaemia, isolated hypotension, hypoxaemia and anaphylaxis) [3]. Unrecognised oesophageal intubation remains an unmeasured and too prevalent problem. Care was often imperfect, being judged (when assessable) to include poor care in 40% of cases before the event and in 36% of cases overall.

It is too easy to believe that rare things do not happen to us or our patients, but this view could not be further from the truth. The approximately 24,000 cases reported to the NAP7 activity survey are comparable in volume to the annual throughput of some larger NHS sites. Based on that survey data and from NAP4 4 and NAP6, these centres would see a case of profound hypotension five times a week, two major haemorrhages a week, laryngospasm every other day, aspiration twice a month, 2–3 life-threatening anaphylactic reactions a year, eight cardiac arrests and several peri-operative deaths [2, 3]. Emergencies are happening all around us. Even if they do not happen to the patient directly under our care.

Nathanson et al. call for mandatory training to focus on low occurrence, high impact events [4]. Many of these have been the focus of previous National Audit Projects. Many may consider the view of Nathanson et al. the right thing to do, but it may not be universally popular and would represent a revolution in mandatory training in the UK. There have already been calls for significant overhauls of mandatory training [5]. What is mandatory, what is statutory and what is fruitful, do not always overlap. However, what needs to be designed, delivered and implemented must be just right; effective but not burdensome. It must be built from solid evidence and be of value and not tokenistic.

An important challenge arises regarding who should drive such a change. The Royal College of Anaesthetists takes the view that it cannot mandate the actions of its members but, conversely, it holds the baton for professional standards, and must, therefore, take a lead. The Association of Anaesthetists has a long history of promoting safety and improving standards through guidelines. We recommend that a task force is established by the College and Association. The NHS should be centrally engaged and committed. Representation from specialist societies, surgeons, patients and experts in human factors, education and implementation science will be essential. The core emergencies should be agreed on and delivery modalities tested. It must be adequately funded, and the efficacy rigorously evaluated. Lessons should be learnt from Australia and New Zealand, where such a programme already exists, and any programme should apply to the NHS and the independent sector. Only through a genuine commitment (nationally, by organisations and departments) to maintain a level of preparedness for anaesthetists, teams and departments can we manage these low occurrence, high impact events better and improve patient safety.

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
强制做好安全准备:个人、医院和国家机构的责任。
大多数时候,在英国,麻醉是安全的。然而,与麻醉有关的紧急情况或严重并发症确实会发生,对患者、其家属和工作人员可能造成毁灭性后果。虽然麻醉紧急情况通常管理良好,但国家报告始终指出了改进的余地。例如,尽管有引人注目的病例,但在英国仍有未被发现的食管插管,造成伤害(包括死亡),但这是可以预防的。来自第七次国家审计项目(NAP7)的数据显示,麻醉和手术是非常安全的(如果患者的身体状态为ASA 1 - 2,在选择性手术中死亡的风险约为10万分之一),但危及生命的事件也并不罕见(18例中有1例出现一种或多种潜在的严重并发症,3000例中有1例心脏骤停,接近1000例中有1例老年人和体弱者)。一半以上的心脏骤停是由低发生率、高影响事件(出血、严重心动过缓、心脏缺血、孤立性低血压、低氧血症和过敏反应)引起的。未被认识到的食管插管仍然是一个未被测量和过于普遍的问题。护理往往是不完善的,在事件发生前,有40%的病例和36%的总体病例被判定为护理不良(在可评估时)。我们很容易相信罕见的事情不会发生在我们或我们的病人身上,但这种观点与事实相去甚远。报告给NAP7活动调查的大约24,000例病例的数量与一些较大的NHS站点的年吞吐量相当。根据该调查数据以及NAP4、NAP4和NAP6的数据,这些中心每周将出现5次深度低血压、每周2次大出血、每隔一天喉痉挛、每月两次吸痰、每年2 - 3次危及生命的过敏反应、8例心脏骤停和几例围手术期死亡[2,3]。紧急情况在我们身边不断发生。即使它们没有发生在我们直接护理的病人身上。Nathanson等人呼吁对低发生率、高影响事件进行强制性培训[4]。其中许多是以前国家审计项目的重点。许多人可能认为Nathanson等人的观点是正确的,但它可能不会普遍受欢迎,并且可能代表英国强制性培训的一场革命。已经有人呼吁对强制性培训制度进行重大改革。什么是强制性的,什么是法定的,什么是卓有成效的,这些并不总是重叠的。然而,需要设计、交付和执行的内容必须恰到好处;有效但不累赘。它必须建立在确凿的证据之上,具有价值,而不是象征性的。一个重要的挑战出现了,谁应该推动这样的变化。英国皇家麻醉师学会认为,它不能强制其成员采取行动,相反,它掌握着专业标准的指挥棒,因此必须发挥带头作用。麻醉师协会在通过指导方针促进安全性和提高标准方面有着悠久的历史。我们建议学院和协会成立一个特别工作组。国民保健服务应该集中参与和承诺。来自专业协会、外科医生、患者以及人的因素、教育和实施科学方面的专家的代表将是必不可少的。应商定核心紧急情况,并检验交付方式。它必须得到充分的资助,并严格评估其功效。应该从澳大利亚和新西兰吸取教训,这两个国家已经有了这样的计划,任何计划都应该适用于NHS和独立部门。只有通过真正的承诺(国家,组织和部门)保持麻醉师,团队和部门的准备水平,我们才能更好地管理这些低发生率,高影响事件并提高患者安全。
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
Anaesthesia
Anaesthesia 医学-麻醉学
CiteScore
21.20
自引率
9.30%
发文量
300
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The official journal of the Association of Anaesthetists is Anaesthesia. It is a comprehensive international publication that covers a wide range of topics. The journal focuses on general and regional anaesthesia, as well as intensive care and pain therapy. It includes original articles that have undergone peer review, covering all aspects of these fields, including research on equipment.
期刊最新文献
Strategies to advance gender equity in anaesthesia leadership: a state-of-the-art review. Pre-oxygenation in patients living with obesity: a reply. Best practice in obstetric general anaesthesia: an umbrella review of pharmacological strategies for induction of general anaesthesia. Use of sterile gowns for single-shot spinal anaesthesia: consensus guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association, Regional Anaesthesia UK, College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland and Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists. Issue Information – Editorial Board
×
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:604180095
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