Approximately 12% of apparently previously cognitively well patients undergoing anaesthesia and noncardiac surgery will develop symptoms of cognitive dysfunction after their procedure. Recent articles in this Journal have highlighted the difficulties of confirming any clear links between anaesthesia and cognitive dysfunction, in part because of the lack of consistency regarding definition and diagnosis. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is usually self-limiting and rarely persists in the longer term, although plausible biological mechanisms for an impact on brain protein deposition do exist. Clinical research studies are frequently confounded by a lack of agreed definitions and consistency of testing. Preoperative assessment of neurocognitive function and risk factor identification is imperative in order to ascertain the true extent of POCD and any causative link to anaesthesia and surgery. At present a multidisciplinary care bundle approach to risk factor stratification and reduction is the most attractive management plan based on evidence of slight benefit from individual interventions. As yet no individual anaesthetic technique, drug or mode of monitoring has been proved to reduce the incidence of POCD. Providing patients with appropriate and accurate information can be difficult because of conflicting evidence. The Royal College of Anaesthetists' patient liaison group has produced a useful patient information leaflet that is designed to provide guidance in discussions of individual risks whilst considerable uncertainties remain.

IntroductionRoutine workflows were redesigned during the first surge of the COVID-19 pandemic to standardize perioperative management of patients and minimize the risk of viral exposure and transmission to staff members. Just-in-time (JIT), in situ simulation training was adopted to implement urgent change, the value of which in a public health crisis has not previously been explored.MethodsImplementation of workflow changes in the setting of the COVID-19 pandemic was accomplished through JIT, in situ simulation training, delivered over a period of 3 weeks to participants from anesthesia, nursing, and surgery, within our healthcare network. The perceived value of this training method was assessed using a postsimulation training survey, composed of Likert scale assessments and free-text responses. The impact on change in practice was assessed by measuring compliance with new COVID-19 workflows for cases of confirmed or suspected COVID-19 managed in the operating room, between March and August 2020.ResultsPostsimulation survey responses collected from 110 of 428 participants (25.7%) demonstrated significant positive shifts along the Likert scale on perceived knowledge of new workflow processes, comfort in adopting them in practice and probability that training would have an impact on future practice (all Ps < 0.001). Free-text responses reflected appreciation for the training being timely, hands-on, and interprofessional. Compliance with new COVID workflows protocols in practice was 95% (121 of 127 cases) and was associated with lower than expected healthcare worker test positive rates (<1%) within the network during this same period.ConclusionsThese findings support JIT, in situ simulation training as a preparedness measure for the perioperative care of COVID-19 patients and demonstrate the value of this approach during public health crises.

No abstract

No abstract