Modern healthcare is delivered by multidisciplinary, distributed healthcare teams who rely on effective teamwork and communication to ensure effective and safe patient care. However, we know that there is an unacceptable rate of unintended patient harm, and much of this is attributed to failures in communication between health professionals. The extensive literature on teams has identified shared mental models, mutual respect and trust and closed-loop communication as the underpinning conditions required for effective teams.

No abstract

SummaryA 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.

SummaryThere are many simulators available for use in anaesthetic-related education and research. Those who wish to purchase a simulator or to establish a simulation facility face a daunting task in understanding the differences between simulators. Recent reviews have focused on narrower areas of simulation, such as airway management or basic life support, or on the application of simulators. It would be difficult to deal in detail with every simulator ever made for anaesthesia, but in the present review we cover the spectrum of currently available anaesthetic simulators, provide an overview of different types of simulator, and discuss a selection of simulators of particular interest, including some of historical significance and some examples of 'home made' simulators. We have found no common terminology amongst authors for describing or classifying simulators, and propose a framework for describing (or classifying) them that is simple, clear and applicable to any simulator.

Background: Etomidate is frequently selected over propofol for induction of anaesthesia because of a putatively favourable haemodynamic profile, but data confirming this perception are limited. Methods: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery were randomised to induction of anaesthesia with propofol or etomidate. Phase I (n¼75) was conducted as open-label, whereas Phase II (n¼75) was double blind. Mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) and boluses of vasopressor administered after induction were recorded. The primary endpoint was the area under the curve below baseline MAP (MAP-time integral) during the 10 min after induction. Secondary endpoints were the use of vasopressors over the same period, and the effect of blinding on the aforementioned endpoints. Groups were compared using regression models with phase and anaesthetist as factors. Results: The mean difference between etomidate and propofol in the MAP-time integral below baseline was 2244 mm Hg s (95% confidence interval, 581e3906; P¼0.009), representing a 34% greater reduction with propofol. Overall, vasopressors were used in 10/75 patients in the etomidate group vs 21/75 in the propofol group (P¼0.38), and in 20/74 patients during the blinded phase vs 11/76 during the open-label phase (P¼0.31). The interaction between randomisation and phase (open-labelled or blinded) was not significant for either primary (P¼0.73) or secondary endpoints (P¼0.90). Conclusions: Propofol caused a 34% greater reduction in MAP-time integral from baseline after induction of anaesthesia than etomidate, despite more frequent use of vasopressors with propofol, confirming the superior haemodynamic profile of etomidate in this context. The proportion of patients receiving vasopressors increased slightly, albeit not significantly, in both groups in the blinded phase. Clinical trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12614000717651.