The International Standards for a Safe Practice of Anesthesia were developed on behalf of the World Federation of Societies of Anaesthesiologists (WFSA), a nonprofit organization representing anesthesiologists in 150 countries, and the World Health Organization (WHO). The recommendations have been approved by WHO and the membership of WFSA. These Standards are applicable to all anesthesia providers throughout the world. They are intended to provide guidance and assistance to anesthesia providers, their professional organizations, hospital and facility administrators, and governments for maintaining and improving the quality and safety of anesthesia care. The Standards cover professional aspects; facilities and equipment; medications and intravenous fluids; monitoring; and the conduct of anesthesia. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED standards, the functional equivalent of mandatory standards, include (amongst other things): the continuous presence of a trained and vigilant anesthesia provider; continuous monitoring of tissue oxygenation and perfusion by clinical observation and a pulse oximeter; intermittent monitoring of blood pressure; confirmation of correct placement of an endotracheal tube (if used) by auscultation and carbon dioxide detection; the use of the WHO Safe Surgery Checklist; and a system for transfer of care at the end of an anesthetic. The International Standards represent minimum standards and the goal should always be to practice to the highest possible standards, preferably exceeding the standards outlined in this document.

Lack of investment in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in systems capturing continuous information regarding care of the acutely unwell patient is hindering global efforts to address inequalities, both at facility and national level. Furthermore, this of lack of data is disempowering frontline staff and those seeking to support them, from progressing setting-relevant research and quality improvement. In contrast to high-income country (HIC) settings, where electronic surveillance has boosted the capability of governments, clinicians and researchers to engage in service-wide healthcare evaluation, healthcare information in resource-limited settings remains almost exclusively paper based. In this practice paper, we describe the efforts of a collaboration of clinicians, administrators, researchers and healthcare informaticians working in South Asia, in addressing the inequality in access to patient information in acute care. Harnessing a clinician-led collaborative approach to design and evaluation, we have implemented a national acute care information platform in Sri Lanka that is tailored to priorities of frontline staff. Iterative adaptation has ensured the platform has the flexibility to integrate with legacy paper systems, support junior team members in advocating for acutely unwell patients and has made information captured accessible to diverse stakeholders to improve service delivery. The same platform is now empowering clinicians to participate in international research and drive forwards improvements in care. During this journey, we have also gained insights on how to overcome well-described barriers to implementation of digital information tools in LMIC. We anticipate that this north–south collaborative approach to addressing the challenges of health system implementation in acute care may provide learning and inspiration to other partnerships seeking to engage in similar work.

The objective of the Working Group in formulating these statements is to guide healthcare professionals in practicing appropriate clinical nutrition in the ICU, with a focus on improving quality of care, which will translate into improved patient outcomes.

No abstract

Introduction:During preoperative preparation, patients undergo investigations to detect asymptomatic diseases. The probability of finding significant abnormalities on such routine investigations is small, and these investigations unnecessarily increase costs of perioperative care. We evaluated current practices, compliance with national guidelines and costs of preoperative investigations at the National Hospital of Sri Lanka (NHSL).Materials and Methods:Patients undergoing elective surgery at the general surgical units of the NHSL from June to August 2010 were included in this study. The National Guidelines on Preoperative Investigations were the standard of assessment. Data on preoperative investigations were collected using an expert-validated pretested interviewer-administered questionnaire.Results:Sample size was 2,061 patients. Mean age of the patients was 46.7±15.8 years; males constituted 54.2% of the study population. Majority of the patients were ASA-I (68.5%) and surgical grade II (62.0%). Request for chest X-ray and prothrombin time / international normalized ratio least conformed to the guidelines. Only fasting blood sugar / random blood sugar demonstrated ‘good’ compliance (>70%) to the guidelines. An ‘acceptable’ compliance (50%-70%) was seen for electrocardiogram, blood grouping and full blood count. All other investigations demonstrated ‘poor’ compliance (<50%) with the guidelines. The total excess cost incurred due to non-recommended investigations during the study period of 3 months was Sri Lankan Rupees (LKR.) 1,324,860 to 2,044,210 (per patient LKR. 642.82-991.85). Intern house officers (IHOs) were involved in the planning of preoperative investigations in 2,001 patients (97.1%), followed by medical officeranesthesia / registrar-anesthesia (n=1,625; 78.8%), surgical registrars (n=190; 9.2%), consultant (n=70; 3.4%), senior registrar (n=46; 2.2%) and senior house officers (n=22; 1.1%). Non-recommended investigations were requested mostly by the IHOs and medical officer–anesthesia / registrar-anesthesia.Conclusions:Unnecessary preoperative investigations are common at our institution, leading to substantially excessive costs. There is ample opportunity to rationalize practices and reduce expenditure.