SummaryFaced with the concern that an increasing number of airway management devices were being introduced into clinical practice with little or no prior evidence of their clinical efficacy or safety, the Difficult Airway Society formed a working party (Airway Device Evaluation Project Team) to establish a process by which the airway management community within the profession could itself lead a process of formal device/equipment evaluation. Although there are several national and international regulations governing which products can come on to the market and be legitimately sold, there has hitherto been no formal professional guidance relating to how products should be selected (i.e. purchased). The Airway Device Evaluation Project Team’s first task was to formulate such advice, emphasising evidence‐based principles. Team discussions led to a definition of the minimum level of evidence needed to make a pragmatic decision about the purchase or selection of an airway device. The Team concluded that this definition should form the basis of a professional standard, guiding those with responsibility for selecting airway devices. We describe how widespread adoption of this professional standard can act as a driver to create an infrastructure in which the required evidence can be obtained. Essential elements are that: (i) the Difficult Airway Society facilitates a coherent national network of research‐active units; and (ii) individual anaesthetists in hospital trusts play a more active role in local purchasing decisions, applying the relevant evidence and communicating their purchasing decisions to the Difficult Airway Society.

SummaryHuman factors in anaesthesia were first highlighted by the publication of the Anaesthetists Non-Technical Skills Framework, and since then an awareness of their importance has gradually resulted in changes in routine clinical practice. This review examines recent literature around human factors in anaesthesia, and highlights recent national reports and guidelines with a focus on team working, communication, situation awareness and human error. We highlight the importance of human factors in modern anaesthetic practice, using the example of complex trauma.

The hallmark of airway management with trauma to the airway is the maintenance of spontaneous ventilation, intubation under direct vision to avoid the creation of a false passage, and the avoidance of both intermittent positive pressure ventilation and cricoid pressure (the latter for laryngotracheal trauma only) during a rapid sequence induction. Management depends on available resources and time to perform airway assessment, investigations, and intervention (patients will be classified into one of three categories: no time, some time, or adequate time). Human factors, particularly the development of a shared mental model amongst the trauma team, are vital to mitigate risk and improve patient safety.

SummaryHuman factors is an evidence‐based scientific discipline used in safety critical industries to improve safety and worker well‐being. The implementation of human factors strategies in anaesthesia has the potential to reduce the reliance on exceptional personal and team performance to provide safe and high‐quality patient care. To encourage the adoption of human factors science in anaesthesia, the Difficult Airway Society and the Association of Anaesthetists established a Working Party, including anaesthetists and operating theatre team members with human factors expertise and/or interest, plus a human factors scientist, an industrial psychologist and an experimental psychologist/implementation scientist. A three‐stage Delphi process was used to formulate a set of 12 recommendations: these are described using a ‘hierarchy of controls’ model and classified into design, barriers, mitigations and education and training strategies. Although most anaesthetic knowledge of human factors concerns non‐technical skills, such as teamwork and communication, human factors is a broad‐based scientific discipline with many other additional aspects that are just as important. Indeed, the human factors strategies most likely to have the greatest impact are those related to the design of safe working environments, equipment and systems. While our recommendations are primarily provided for anaesthetists and the teams they work with, there are likely to be lessons for others working in healthcare beyond the speciality of anaesthesia.

Healthcare relies on high levels of human performance, as described by the `human as the hero´concept. However, human performance varies and is recognised to fall in high-pressure situations, meaning that it is not a reliable method of ensuring safety. Other safety-critical industries embed human factors principles into all aspects of their organisations to improve safety and reduce reliance on exceptional human performance; there is potential to do the same in anaesthesia. Human factors is a broad-based scientific discipline which aims to make it as easy as possible for workers to do things correctly. The human factors strategies most likely to be effective are those which `design out´the chance of an error or adverse event occurring. When errors or adverse events do happen, barriers are in place to trap them and reduce the risk of progression to patient and/or worker harm. If errors or adverse events are not trapped by these barriers, mitigations are in place to minimise the consequences. Non-technical skills form an important part of human factors barriers and mitigation strategies and include: situation awareness; decision-making; task management; and team working. Human factors principles are not a substitute for proper investment and appropriate staffing levels. Although applying human factors science has the potential to save money in the long term, its proper implementation may require investment before reward can be reaped. This narrative review describes what is known about human factors in anaesthesia to date.