Background:Various adjuvants are being used with local anesthetics for prolongation of intraoperative and postoperative analgesia. Dexmedetomidine, the highly selective 2 adrenergic agonist is a new neuraxial adjuvant gaining popularity.Settings and Design:The study was conducted in prospective, double blind manner. It included 120 American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) class I and II patients undergoing lower limb surgery under spinal anesthesia after approval from hospital ethics committee with written and informed consent of patients.Materials and Methods:The patients were randomly allocated into four groups (30 patients each). Group BS received 12.5 mg hyperbaric bupivacaine with normal saline, group BF received 12.5 mg bupivacaine with 25 g fentanyl, group BC received 12.5 mg of bupivacaine supplemented 30 g clonidine, and group BD received 12.5 mg bupivacaine plus 5 g dexmedetomidine. The onset time to reach peak sensory and motor level, the regression time of sensory and motor block, hemodynamic changes, and side effects were recorded.Results:Patients in Group BD had significantly longer sensory and motor block times than patients in Groups BC, BF, and BS with Groups BC and BF having comparable duration of sensory and motor block. The mean time of two segment sensory block regression was 147 ± 21 min in Group BD, 117 ± 22 in Group BC, 119 ± 23 in Group BF, and 102 ± 17 in Group BS (P > 0.0001). The regression time of motor block to reach modified Bromage zero (0) was 275 ± 25, 199 ± 26, 196 ± 27, 161 ± 20 in Group BD, BC, BF, and BS, respectively (P > 0.0001). The onset times to reach T8 dermatome and modified Bromage 3 motor block were not significantly different between the groups. Dexmedetomidine group showed significantly less and delayed requirement of rescue analgesic.Conclusions:Intrathecal dexmedetomidine is associated with prolonged motor and sensory block, hemodynamic stability, and reduced demand of rescue analgesics in 24 h as compared to clonidine, fentanyl, or lone bupivacaine.

Medication errors are the common causes of patient morbidity and mortality. It adds financial burden to the institution as well. Though the impact varies from no harm to serious adverse effects including death, it needs attention on priority basis since medication errors' are preventable. In today's world where people are aware and medical claims are on the hike, it is of utmost priority that we curb this issue. Individual effort to decrease medication error alone might not be successful until a change in the existing protocols and system is incorporated. Often drug errors that occur cannot be reversed. The best way to 'treat' drug errors is to prevent them. Wrong medication (due to syringe swap), overdose (due to misunderstanding or preconception of the dose, pump misuse and dilution error), incorrect administration route, under dosing and omission are common causes of medication error that occur perioperatively. Drug omission and calculation mistakes occur commonly in ICU. Medication errors can occur perioperatively either during preparation, administration or record keeping. Numerous human and system errors can be blamed for occurrence of medication errors. The need of the hour is to stop the blame - game, accept mistakes and develop a safe and 'just' culture in order to prevent medication errors. The newly devised systems like VEINROM, a fluid delivery system is a novel approach in preventing drug errors due to most commonly used medications in anesthesia. Similar developments along with vigilant doctors, safe workplace culture and organizational support all together can help prevent these errors.

Universally, anesthesiologists are expected to be knowledgeable, astutely responding to clinical challenges while maintaining a prolonged vigilance for administration of safe anesthesia and critical care. A fatigued anesthesiologist is the consequence of cumulative acuity, manifesting as decreased motor and cognitive powers. This results in impaired judgement, late and inadequate responses to clinical changes, poor communication and inadequate record keeping. With rising expectations and increased medico-legal claims, anesthesiologists work round the clock to provide efficient and timely services, but are the "sleep provider" in a sleep debt them self? Is it the right time to promptly address these issues so that we prevent silent perpetuation of problems pertinent to anesthesiologist’s health and the profession. The implications of sleep debt on patient safety are profound and preventive strategies are quintessential. Anesthesiology governing bodies must ensure requisite laws to prevent the adverse outcomes of sleep debt before patient care is compromised.