Differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority and patient safety: a single-centre mixed-methods study.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2024-11-27 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.030
Xiaohan Xu, Xuerong Yu, Yuelun Zhang, Hongling Chu, Huan Zhang, Xue Zhang, Shuang Ma, Lingeer Wu, Quexuan Cui, Le Shen, Yuguang Huang
{"title":"Differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority and patient safety: a single-centre mixed-methods study.","authors":"Xiaohan Xu, Xuerong Yu, Yuelun Zhang, Hongling Chu, Huan Zhang, Xue Zhang, Shuang Ma, Lingeer Wu, Quexuan Cui, Le Shen, Yuguang Huang","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.030","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Junior anaesthesiologists often find it difficult to gain the trust of surgeons, possibly because of their limited experience and unfamiliarity with surgeons. Therefore, they can face pressure when navigating disagreements with senior surgeons. We investigated whether and how differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority might impact patient safety.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This was a sequential explanatory, mixed-methods evaluation conducted at a general hospital, comprising a retrospective case-control study followed by semi-structured interviews. In the quantitative phase, the case group included surgical patients who experienced anaesthesia-related adverse events. The control group was randomly selected from surgical patients without adverse events, matched to the case group by surgeon, surgery, and surgery year. The exposure was the differences in work experience between anaesthesiologists and surgeons. For the qualitative phase, participants were recruited from attending anaesthesiologists using a theoretical sampling strategy, and a grounded theory analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The quantitative study included 390 patients in the case group and 1560 patients in the control group. After controlling for confounders, we did not find a significant association between differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority and odds of anaesthesia-related adverse events (adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.01, P=0.634). In cases of disagreements among surgeons, anaesthesiologists primarily based clinical decisions on the potential impact on patient safety. Junior anaesthesiologists faced challenges when rejecting surgeons. Nevertheless, they received robust support from anaesthesiology colleagues.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The capacity of anaesthesiologists to uphold patient safety was not significantly affected by their seniority levels relative to surgeons.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2024.09.030","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

Background: Junior anaesthesiologists often find it difficult to gain the trust of surgeons, possibly because of their limited experience and unfamiliarity with surgeons. Therefore, they can face pressure when navigating disagreements with senior surgeons. We investigated whether and how differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority might impact patient safety.

Methods: This was a sequential explanatory, mixed-methods evaluation conducted at a general hospital, comprising a retrospective case-control study followed by semi-structured interviews. In the quantitative phase, the case group included surgical patients who experienced anaesthesia-related adverse events. The control group was randomly selected from surgical patients without adverse events, matched to the case group by surgeon, surgery, and surgery year. The exposure was the differences in work experience between anaesthesiologists and surgeons. For the qualitative phase, participants were recruited from attending anaesthesiologists using a theoretical sampling strategy, and a grounded theory analysis was performed.

Results: The quantitative study included 390 patients in the case group and 1560 patients in the control group. After controlling for confounders, we did not find a significant association between differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority and odds of anaesthesia-related adverse events (adjusted odds ratio 1.00, 95% confidence interval 0.98-1.01, P=0.634). In cases of disagreements among surgeons, anaesthesiologists primarily based clinical decisions on the potential impact on patient safety. Junior anaesthesiologists faced challenges when rejecting surgeons. Nevertheless, they received robust support from anaesthesiology colleagues.

Conclusions: The capacity of anaesthesiologists to uphold patient safety was not significantly affected by their seniority levels relative to surgeons.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
A critical approach to research on perioperative pain management. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the perioperative period: current controversies and concerns. Aperiodic component of the electroencephalogram power spectrum reflects the hypnotic level of anaesthesia. Comparison of different monitors for measurement of nociception during general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Differences in anaesthesiologist-surgeon seniority and patient safety: a single-centre mixed-methods study.
×
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