No abstract

Summary In 2008, the National Patient Safety Agency (NPSA) issued a Rapid Response Report concerning problems with infusions and sampling from arterial lines. The risk of blood sample contamination from glucose‐containing arterial line infusions was highlighted and changes in arterial line management were recommended. Despite this guidance, errors with arterial line infusions remain common. We report a case of severe hypoglycaemia and neuroglycopenia caused by glucose contamination of arterial line blood samples. This case occurred despite the implementation of the practice changes recommended in the 2008 NPSA alert. We report an analysis of the factors contributing to this incident using the Yorkshire Contributory Factors Framework. We discuss the nature of the errors that occurred and list the consequent changes in practice implemented on our unit to prevent recurrence of this incident, which go well beyond those recommended by the NPSA in 2008.

Summary We present 14 cases, of which three have been previously reported, in which non‐conventional use was made of the Aintree Intubating Catheter (AIC). In seven cases the AIC was used via a ProSeal Laryngeal mask airway (PLMA™). Two patients had anticipated difficult intubation, two unexpected difficult intubation and two required rescue of an obstructed airway prior to AIC‐assisted intubation. In two cases of tracheal stenosis the AIC was used as a ‘long narrow tracheal tube’ during fibre‐optic intubation: the AIC facilitated passage through the narrowed trachea and smooth railroading of a tracheal tube. In two cases the AIC was used in an awake patient. In three cases the AIC was used successfully despite gross laryngeal oedema. In three cases attempted AIC deployment failed: two patients had undergone radiotherapy to the mouth and PLMA placement failed; in the third, supraglottic oedema prevented visualisation of the larynx. The AIC via an LMA Classic™ was successful in one of these cases. In all cases where the larynx was visualised the AIC was rapidly successful without complications. In eight cases the anaesthetist had no experience of the technique outside workshops. These cases demonstrate general utility of the technique and successful use of the AIC via the PLMA, in awake patients, as an adjunct to fibre‐optic intubation and in patients with an oedematous larynx. Finally, cases where the combination of the PLMA and AIC was unsuccessful demonstrate the technique, like many, is not always successful.

SummaryNinety‐three claims (total cost £4 915 450) filed under ‘anaesthesia’ in the NHS Litigation Authority database between 1995 and 2007, alleging patient harm directly by drug administration error or by an allergic reaction, were analysed. Alleged errors were categorised using systems employed by the National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention, the American Society of Anesthesiologists Closed Claims Project and the UK Health and Safety Executive. The severity of outcome in each claim was categorised using adapted National Patient Safety Agency definitions. Sixty‐two claims involved alleged drug administration errors (total cost £4 283 677) and 15 resulted in severe harm or death. Half alleged the administration of the wrong drug, in most (16) a neuromuscular blocker. Of the claims alleging the wrong dose had been given (25), nine alleged opioid overdose including by neuraxial routes. The most frequently recorded adverse outcomes were awake paralysis (19 claims; total cost £182 347) and respiratory depression requiring intensive care treatment (13 claims; total cost £2 752 853). Thirty‐one claims involved allergic reactions (total cost £631 773). In 20 claims, the patient allegedly received a drug to which they were known to be allergic (total cost £130 794). All claims in which it was possible to categorise the nature of the error involved human error. Fewer than half the claims appeared likely to have been preventable by an ‘ideal double checking process’.

SummaryWe have evaluated the Airway Management Device (AMDe) in 105 anaesthetised patients. We were successful in establishing a clear airway on the first attempt on 69 occasions and unable to establish a patent airway at all in 10 patients. Airway obstruction requiring removal of the device occurred during maintenance of anaesthesia in a further two cases and during emergence in three. Loss of the airway during anaesthesia occurred in eight of 95 patients and could be reversed by manipulation of the airway in six cases. Overall, a mean of 0.56 manipulations per patient were required to establish an airway and a further 0.42 per patient were required during maintenance of anaesthesia. In the 95 patients in whom an airway was established, assisted ventilation was satisfactory in 93, with a leak pressure above 20 cmH 2 O in 65. Intracuff pressure was measured in 12 cases and was above 100 cmH 2 O in eight. Minor complications occurred in 12 patients. Blood was visible on removal of the device in six cases.