British journal of anaesthesia
-
There is limited information on UK anaesthetists' perspectives and experiences of perioperative anaphylaxis. This baseline survey of the Sixth National Audit Project (NAP6) aimed to identify relevant departmental preparedness and practices, and individual experiences, perceptions and drug-avoidance patterns. ⋯ This is the largest ever survey of anaesthetists' practices and experiences relating to perioperative anaphylaxis. It identifies gaps in preparedness and referral for further investigation and to the UK MHRA. It provides important data about drugs implicated in such events and anaesthetists' attitudes to anaphylaxis.
-
Comparative Study
Hypotension during induction of anaesthesia is neither a reliable nor a useful quality measure for comparison of anaesthetists' performance.
Identification of statistically reliable outcomes for comparison among anaesthetists is challenging. Time-weighted intraoperative mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg (AUC 65 ) is associated with increased odds for myocardial damage. We explored retrospectively whether such hypotension before incision was statistically reliable for peer comparison. ⋯ The AUC 65 of time-weighted pre-incision hypotension is not a suitable metric for comparing anaesthetists. There were few at-risk patients, half the anaesthetists were not evaluable because of their case-mix and caseload, and hypotension was widely distributed.
-
Research suggests that providing clinicians with feedback on their performance can result in professional behaviour change and improved clinical outcomes. Departments would benefit from understanding which characteristics of feedback support effective quality monitoring, professional behaviour change and service improvement. This study aimed to report the experience of anaesthetists participating in a long-term initiative to provide comprehensive personalized feedback to consultants on patient-reported quality of recovery indicators in a large London teaching hospital. ⋯ This study investigated the requirements for effective feedback on quality of anaesthetic care for anaesthetists, highlighting the mechanisms by which feedback may translate into improvements in practice at the individual and peer-group level.