Craig S. Webster

Evidence‐based strategies for preventing drug administration errors during anaesthesia

We developed evidence‐based recommendations for the minimisation of errors in intravenous drug administration in anaesthesia from a systematic review of the literature that identified 98 relevant references (14 with experimental designs or incident reports and 19 with reports of cases or case series). We validated the recommendations using reports of drug errors collected in a previous study. One general and five specific strong recommendations were generated: systematic countermeasures should be used to decrease the number of drug administration errors in anaesthesia; the label on any drug ampoule or syringe should be read carefully before a drug is drawn up or injected; the legibility and contents of labels on ampoules and syringes should be optimised according to agreed standards; syringes should (almost) always be labelled; formal organisation of drug drawers and workspaces should be used; labels should be checked with a second person or a device before a drug is drawn up or administered.

A New, Safety-oriented, Integrated Drug Administration and Automated Anesthesia Record System

Medication errors are an important cause of patient morbidity and mortality and excessive costs, including in anesthesia. Conventional methods of injectable drug administration in anesthesia make little use of technology to support manual checking and are idiosyncratic and relatively error prone. Similarly, conventional anesthesia records are handwritten, time-consuming to make, and often unreliable. There are automated record systems, but they do not provide support for checking drugs. Therefore, by using a multifaceted approach based on established principles of systems design and human factors psychology, we have developed a system that includes trays that promote a well-organized anesthetic workspace, color- and bar-coded labeling of syringes, and automatic visual and auditory verification of the syringe labels by computer just before each drug administration. In addition, documentation of drugs administered and a traditional anesthetic case record are generated automatically. The system has been successfully deployed for 25 mo and has been used by 35 anesthesiologists in 1148 diverse cases, including cardiopulmonary bypass procedures, heart and lung transplants, and orthopedic and otorhinolaryngologic operations. It is in daily use in a tertiary teaching center and in a private hospital.

Multimodal system designed to reduce errors in recording and administration of drugs in anaesthesia: prospective randomised clinical evaluation

Objective To clinically evaluate a new patented multimodal system (SAFERSleep) designed to reduce errors in the recording and administration of drugs in anaesthesia. Design Prospective randomised open label clinical trial. Setting Five designated operating theatres in a major tertiary referral hospital. Participants Eighty nine consenting anaesthetists managing 1075 cases in which there were 10 764 drug administrations. Intervention Use of the new system (which includes customised drug trays and purpose designed drug trolley drawers to promote a well organised anaesthetic workspace and aseptic technique; pre-filled syringes for commonly used anaesthetic drugs; large legible colour coded drug labels; a barcode reader linked to a computer, speakers, and touch screen to provide automatic auditory and visual verification of selected drugs immediately before each administration; automatic compilation of an anaesthetic record; an on-screen and audible warning if an antibiotic has not been administered within 15 minutes of the start of anaesthesia; and certain procedural rules—notably, scanning the label before each drug administration) versus conventional practice in drug administration with a manually compiled anaesthetic record. Main outcome measures Primary: composite of errors in the recording and administration of intravenous drugs detected by direct observation and by detailed reconciliation of the contents of used drug vials against recorded administrations; and lapses in responding to an intermittent visual stimulus (vigilance latency task). Secondary: outcomes in patients; analyses of anaesthetists’ tasks and assessments of workload; evaluation of the legibility of anaesthetic records; evaluation of compliance with the procedural rules of the new system; and questionnaire based ratings of the respective systems by participants. Results The overall mean rate of drug errors per 100 administrations was 9.1 (95% confidence interval 6.9 to 11.4) with the new system (one in 11 administrations) and 11.6 (9.3 to 13.9) with conventional methods (one in nine administrations) (P=0.045 for difference). Most were recording errors, and, though fewer drug administration errors occurred with the new system, the comparison with conventional methods did not reach significance. Rates of errors in drug administration were lower when anaesthetists consistently applied two key principles of the new system (scanning the drug barcode before administering each drug and keeping the voice prompt active) than when they did not: mean 6.0 (3.1 to 8.8) errors per 100 administrations v 9.7 (8.4 to 11.1) respectively (P=0.004). Lapses in the vigilance latency task occurred in 12% (58/471) of cases with the new system and 9% (40/473) with conventional methods (P=0.052). The records generated by the new system were more legible, and anaesthetists preferred the new system, particularly in relation to long, complex, and emergency cases. There were no differences between new and conventional systems in respect of outcomes in patients or anaesthetists’ workload. Conclusions The new system was associated with a reduction in errors in the recording and administration of drugs in anaesthesia, attributable mainly to a reduction in recording errors. Automatic compilation of the anaesthetic record increased legibility but also increased lapses in a vigilance latency task and decreased time spent watching monitors. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry No 12608000068369.

Sleep Loss and Performance of Anaesthesia Trainees and Specialists

Fatigue risk associated with work schedules of hospital doctors is coming under increasing scrutiny, with much of the research and regulatory focus on trainees. However, provision of 24 h services involves both trainees and specialists, who have different but interdependent work patterns. This study examined work patterns, sleep (actigraphy, diaries) and performance (psychomotor vigilance task pre‐ and post‐duty) of 28 anaesthesia trainees and 20 specialists across a two‐week work cycle in two urban public hospitals. Trainees at one hospital worked back‐to‐back 12 h shifts, while the others usually worked 9 h day shifts but periodically worked a 14 h day (08:00–22:00 h) to maintain cover until arrival of the night shift (10 h). On 11% of day shifts and 23% of night shifts, trainees were working with ≥2 h of acute sleep loss. However, average sleep loss was not greater on night shifts, possibly because workload at night in one hospital often permitted some sleep. Post‐night shift performance was worse than post‐day shift performance for the median (t(131)=3.57, p<0.001) and slowest 10% of reaction times (t(134)=2.91, p<0.01). At the end of night shifts, poorer performance was associated with longer shift length, longer time since waking, greater acute sleep loss, and more total work in the past 24 h. Specialists at both hospitals had scheduled clinical duties during the day and were periodically scheduled on call to cover after‐hours services. On 8% of day shifts and 14% of day+call schedules, specialists were working with ≥2 h of acute sleep loss. They averaged 0.6 h less sleep when working day shifts (t(23.5)=2.66, p=0.014) and 0.8 h less sleep when working day shifts+call schedules (t(26.3)=2.65, p=0.013) than on days off. Post‐duty reaction times slowed linearly across consecutive duty days (median reaction time, t(131)=−3.38, p<0.001; slowest 10%, t(160)=−3.33, p<0.01; fastest 10%, t(138)=−2.67, p<0.01). Poorer post‐duty performance was associated with greater acute sleep loss and longer time since waking, but better performance was associated with longer day shifts, consistent with circadian improvement in psychomotor performance across the waking day. This appears to be the first study to document sleep loss among specialist anaesthetists. Consistent with observations from experimental studies, the sleep loss of specialists across 12 consecutive working days was associated with a progressive decline in post‐duty PVT performance. However, this decline occurred with much less sleep restriction (< 1 h per day) than in laboratory studies, suggesting an exacerbating effect of extended wakefulness and/or cumulative fatigue associated with work demands. For both trainees and specialists, robust circadian variation in PVT performance was evident in this complex work setting, despite the potential confounds of variable shift durations and workloads. The relationship between PVT performance of an individual and the safe administration of anaesthesia in the operating theater is unknown. Nevertheless, the findings reinforce that any schedule changes to reduce work‐related fatigue need to consider circadian performance variation and the potential transfer of workload and fatigue risk between trainees and specialists.

Clinical assessment of a new anaesthetic drug administration system: a prospective, controlled, longitudinal incident monitoring study

A safety‐orientated system of delivering parenteral anaesthetic drugs was assessed in a prospective incident monitoring study at two hospitals. Anaesthetists completed an incident form for every anaesthetic, indicating if an incident occurred. Case mix data were collected and the number of drug administrations made during procedures estimated. From February 1998 at Hospital A and from June 1999 at Hospital B, until November 2003, 74 478 anaesthetics were included, for which 59 273 incident forms were returned (a 79.6% response rate). Fewer parenteral drug errors occurred with the new system than with conventional methods (58 errors in an estimated 183 852 drug administrations (0.032%, 95% CI 0.024–0.041%) vs 268 in 550 105 (0.049%, 95% CI 0.043–0.055%) respectively, p = 0.002), a relative reduction of 35% (difference 0.017%, 95% CI 0.006–0.028%). No major adverse outcomes from these errors were reported with the new system while 11 (0.002%) were reported with conventional methods (p = 0.055). We conclude that targeted system re‐design can reduce medical error.

The nuclear power industry as an alternative analogy for safety in anaesthesia and a novel approach for the conceptualisation of safety goals

Safety practices in health care have not kept pace with the increasing complexity of medical technology. Although anaesthesia is generally considered to be a leader in the improvement of patient safety, more powerful safety strategies must be found and employed. From an analysis of system characteristics, the nuclear power industry is proposed as an alternative analogy for safety in anaesthesia, and a novel diagrammatic approach is developed for the conceptualisation of safety goals. The nuclear power industry has spent vastly more time and money than has health care on the development of safety, and has progressed through significant safety milestones approximately three times more quickly than has anaesthesia. The greatest scope for the improvement of safety in anaesthesia lies in the appropriate re‐design of medical systems and the lowering of the threshold for the reporting of incidents to include accident precursors, thus allowing the identification of dangerous systems before accidents occur.

Cerebral Protection by Lidocaine During Cardiac Operations: A Follow-Up Study

BACKGROUND A previous study showed less postoperative neurocognitive impairment in open-chamber cardiac surgery patients given lidocaine for 48 hours after induction of anesthesia. In the present study, we aimed to test the benefit of a 12-hour infusion in a broader group of cardiac surgery patients, including those undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. METHODS This was a randomized, double-blind, intention-to-treat trial. Before cardiac surgery, 158 patients completed 7 neurocognitive tests and a self-rating scale for memory. They received a 12-hour infusion of either lidocaine in a standard antiarrhythmic dose or placebo, beginning at induction of anesthesia. The cognitive tests and memory scale were repeated at postoperative weeks 10 and 25. A deficit in any cognitive test was defined as a decline in score by more than or equal to the preoperative group standard deviation. RESULTS All tests were completed by 118 and 107 patients at 10 and 25 weeks, respectively. The proportions of patients in the lidocaine and placebo groups exhibiting a deficit in one or more tests were as follows: 45.8% versus 40.7% at 10 weeks, and 35.2% versus 37.7% at 25 weeks (not significant). There were no significant differences between groups in self-ratings of memory function or length of intensive care unit or hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS Lidocaine was not neuroprotective. The result of the previous trial may represent a type 1 error. Alternatively, benefit may be more likely for open-chamber surgery patients exposed to larger numbers of emboli or with a longer lidocaine infusion.

Evaluation in an anaesthetic simulator of a prototype of a new drug administration system designed to reduce error.

Ten anaesthetists were observed while providing anaesthesia for two simulated surgical procedures, twice using conventional methods and twice using a prototype of a new drug administration system designed to reduce error. Aspects of each method were rated by users on 10‐cm visual analogue scales (10 being best) and comments were invited. Median safety scores were 7.7 cm (range 4.3–8.9) for the new system and 4.6 cm (1.3–8.2) for conventional methods (p = 0.009). The new system was compared favourably with conventional methods in respect of safety (p = 0.005), clinical acceptability (p = 0.008), organisation and layout (p = 0.047), and acceptability for use on patients (p = 0.005). The new system saved time in the preparation of drugs both before anaesthesia (105 vs. 346 s; p < 0.001) and during anaesthesia (20 vs. 104 s; p < 0.001). Comments facilitated development of the system and the evaluation endorsed proceeding to a clinical trial.

A prospective, randomised clinical evaluation of a new safety‐orientated injectable drug administration system in comparison with conventional methods*

Fifteen anaesthetists were observed while providing anaesthesia for 15 pairs of adult cardiac surgical operations, using conventional methods for one of each pair and a new drug administration system designed to reduce error for the other. Aspects of each method were rated by users on 10‐cm visual analogue scales (10 being best). The new system was rated more favourably than conventional methods in terms of safety (median [range] = 8.1 [6.8–9.7] vs. 7.1 [2.6–9.3] cm; p = 0.001) and usability (8.5 [5.9–9.4] vs. 7.5 [3.2–9.8] cm; p = 0.027). The new system saved preparation time both before anaesthesia (median [range] = 180 [32–480] vs. 360 [120–600] s; p = 0.013) and during anaesthesia (10 [2–38] vs. 12 [10–60] s; p = 0.009). Prefilled syringes for the new system increased costs by €23.00 per anaesthetic (p = 0.041), but this increase is likely to be offset by the potential of the new system to decrease costly iatrogenic harm by preventing drug error.

A systematic review of simulation for multidisciplinary team training in operating rooms.

Summary Statement Current simulation training initiatives predominantly occur in uniprofessional silos and do little to integrate different disciplines working in the operating room (OR). The objective of this review was to determine the current status of work describing simulation for full OR multidisciplinary teams including barriers to conducting OR multidisciplinary team training and factors contributing to successful courses. We found a total of 18 articles from 10 research groups. Various scenarios and simulators were used, and training sessions were generally perceived as realistic and beneficial by participants despite rudimentary integration of surgical and anesthetic models. Measures of performance involved a variety of both technical and nontechnical ratings of the simulations. Challenges to conducting the simulations included recruitment, model realism, and financial costs. Future work should focus on how best to overcome the barriers to implementation of team training interventions for full OR teams, particularly on how to engage senior staff to aid recruitment.