Summary This guideline updates and replaces the 5th edition of the Standards of Monitoring published in 2015. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on the minimum standards for monitoring of any patient undergoing anaesthesia or sedation under the care of an anaesthetist. The recommendations are primarily aimed at anaesthetists practising in the UK and Ireland, but it is recognised that these guidelines may also be of use in other areas of the world. Minimum standards for monitoring patients during anaesthesia and in the recovery phase are included. There is also guidance on monitoring patients undergoing sedation and during transfer. There are new sections specifically discussing capnography, sedation and regional anaesthesia. In addition, the indications for processed electroencephalogram and neuromuscular monitoring have been updated.

We investigated the cricoid pressure technique of 135 anaesthetic assistants attending the annual conference of the British Association of Operating Department Assistants in May 1997. Their knowledge and training were assessed using a structured interview. Technique was assessed using a simulator measuring applied force during sham cricoid pressure. Our additional aims were to see whether a knowledge of the required force and practical training in the application of a target force would affect performance. Our results highlight a lack of knowledge relating to the manoeuvre. Only about one-third of subjects could quote an appropriate force and fewer than half could give a single contraindication to its use. Very few subjects had been trained on a model before practising the technique on a patient. Technique was poor and we observed a large variation in the force actually applied. Performance, as assessed by the variability of forces applied and proportion of subjects applying force within our target range (30-44 N), was improved markedly by providing simple instruction about the required force in an understandable form. Performance was further improved by practical training in the application of target force on a simulator.

Summary Gathering evidence from animal experiments, an editorial in this journal and published human case reports culminated in the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland recommending in August 2007 that lipid emulsion be immediately available to all patients given potentially cardiotoxic doses of local anaesthetic drugs. This development offered an opportunity to track the adoption of an innovation by anaesthetists in the UK and to gauge the effects of guidelines. Two surveys, each of 66 NHS hospitals delivering acute care within London and its penumbra, examined the adoption of lipid emulsion therapy. After the publication of the editorial in autumn 2006, the spread of ‘lipid rescue’ was rapid. The timing of the adoption and the impetus for innovation varied substantially between the sampled hospitals. When the formal guidelines were published, approximately half of the hospitals surveyed did not have lipid rescue. Of those that subsequently adopted it, half attributed their decision to the guidelines. At the end of 2007, there remained a small number of hospitals that had yet to adopt lipid rescue. Lipid rescue’s adoption by anaesthetists in the UK offers a rare example of swift uptake of an innovation. National guidelines accelerated the adoption of innovation by some hospitals.

No abstract

The use of intravenous lipid emulsion (ILE) as an antidote has prompted significant academic and clinical interest. Between August 2009 and August 2012, data from cases of ILE use in intoxicated patients in different hospitals on different continents were voluntarily entered into a registry based on the world wide web (www.lipidregistry.org). Here, we report data from this project. Participating centers were given access to the registry following institutional subscription. Specifically sought were details of the individual patients' presenting condition, indications for ILE use, ILE administration regimen, potential complications, and of clinical outcome. Forty-eight uses of ILE were reported from 61 participating centers. Ten cases of local anesthetic systemic toxicity were reported; all (10/10) survived. Thirtyeight cases of intoxication by other agents were reported [30 decreased conscious state, 8 cardiovascular collapse (3 deaths)]. There was an elevation in GCS (p<0.0001) and increased systolic blood pressure (p=0.012) from immediately prior to ILE administration to 30 min after use. One serious and two minor adverse effects of ILE use were recorded in 48 reported cases (one case of bronchospastic reaction, one case of hyperamylasemia and one case of interference with laboratory testing). In this series of cases reported to the registry, improvements were seen for GCS in patients with central nervous system toxicity and in systolic blood pressure in shocked patients over a short time frame after the injection of ILE. Few adverse effects were recorded. Clinical trials and the reporting of drug concentrations after ILE use are necessary to further elucidate the role of ILE in clinical toxicology.