Patient safety and quality: can anaesthetists play a greater role?

Jorm, Christine

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2044.2003.03396.x

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If hospital admission for surgery is to attain the six sigma level of safety recommended by the US Institutes of Health 37 , anaesthetists must routinely use checklists in their work. It is recognised that this could be threatening to some anaesthetists or considered intrusive, but patient safety must override personal preferences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Audit of Level Two and Level Three Checks of Anaesthesia Delivery Systems Performed at Three Hospitals in South Australia

Sweeney

Owen

Fronsko

et al. 2012

Anaesth Intensive Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anaesthetists may subject patients to unnecessary risk by not checking anaesthetic equipment thoroughly before use. Numerous adverse events have been associated with failure to check equipment. The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists and anaesthetic delivery system manufactures have made recommendations on how anaesthetic equipment should be maintained and checked before use and for the training required for staff who use such equipment. These recommendations are made to minimise the risk to patients undergoing anaesthesia. This prospective audit investigated the adherence of anaesthetic practitioners to a selection of those recommendations. Covert observations of anaesthetic practitioners were made while they were checking their designated anaesthetic machine, either at the beginning of a day's list or between cases. Structured interviews with staff who check the anaesthetic machine were carried out to determine the training they had received. The results indicated poor compliance with recommendations: significantly, the backup oxygen cylinders’ pressure/contents were not checked in 45% of observations; the emergency ventilation device was not checked in 67% of observations; the breathing circuit was not tested between patients in 79% of observations; no documentation of the checks performed was done in any cases; and no assessment or accreditation of the staff who performed these checks was performed. It was concluded that the poor compliance was a system failing and that patient safety might be increased with training and accrediting staff responsible for checking equipment, documenting the checks performed, and the formulation and use of a checklist.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Audit of Level Two and Level Three Checks of Anaesthesia Delivery Systems Performed at Three Hospitals in South Australia

Sweeney

Owen

Fronsko

et al. 2012

Anaesth Intensive Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As stated in Helsinki patient safety declaration in 2011, “Anaesthesiology is the key specialty in medicine to take up responsibility for achieving the goals which will notably improve Patient Safety in Europe.”[ 2 ] Hence, anesthesiologists have a distinctive, cross-specialty opportunity to influence safety and quality of patient care. [ 3 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Role of academic anesthesiology department in introducing patient safety module into medical school curriculum: 5 years-experience at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia

Arab

2019

Saudi J Anaesth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A patient who undergoes anesthesia is at risk of complications and the anesthetist is expected to be responsible in securing patient safety through adequate management of these risks and outcomes (19). Moreover, when a patient experiences anaesthetic-related complication in the recovery room it is the duty of the anaesthetist to ensure that the patient is made aware of and fully understands the complications (20,21)…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Undesirable Perioperative Anesthesia Outcomes at Two National Referral Hospitals, a cross sectional study in Eritrea

Andemeskel

Elsholz

Gebreyohannes

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Perioperative undesirable anesthesia outcomes are common among patients undergoing surgery. They may affect body systems and lead into more serious intraoperative and postoperative problems. This research is conducted in the Eritrean National Referral Hospitals with the aim of assessing the prevalence of undesirable anesthesia outcomes during the perioperative period. Method: A cross sectional study design was applied on 470 patient who underwent different types of surgeries with in a three month period. Patients were interviewed 24 hours after operation using the Leiden preoperative care patient satisfaction questionnaire (LPPSq). This study reports one component of a large study conducted. The dimension “Discomfort and needs” of the LPPSq was considered and the measurement of that dimension are presented in this report. Items of the dimension were standardized and measured using a five point Likert scale from “Not at all” to “Extremely”. Multivariable logistic regression was used to look for the association of the outcomes with the types of surgery and types of anesthesia using SPSS (Version 22). Statistical significance level was set at p< 0.05. Results: The prevalence of undesirable anesthesia outcomes were computed in two manners; prevalence of those with ‘at least a little bit’ outcomes which was computed to see the total occurrence of these outcomes and prevalence of those having ‘more than moderate’ outcomes to see the severe experience of these outcomes. Prevalence of the predominant undesirable outcome, post-operative pain, for ‘at least a little bit’ and ‘more than moderate’ were 82.6% and 43.6% respectively. The rest post-operative undesirable outcomes were less frequently reported. Conclusion: Postoperative pain was found to be the most prevalent undesirable outcome. Enhancement of the proper assessment and management of postoperative pain through the development and implementation of specific pain management modalities is needed. Local guidelines should also be available in these settings for the treatment of acute postoperative pain or other outcomes. Keywords: Leiden preoperative care patient satisfaction questionnaire (LPPSq), Perioperative care, Surgery, Undesirable anesthesia outcomes.

show abstract

Patient safety and quality: can anaesthetists play a greater role?

Cited by 9 publications

References 34 publications

An Audit of Level Two and Level Three Checks of Anaesthesia Delivery Systems Performed at Three Hospitals in South Australia

An Audit of Level Two and Level Three Checks of Anaesthesia Delivery Systems Performed at Three Hospitals in South Australia

Role of academic anesthesiology department in introducing patient safety module into medical school curriculum: 5 years-experience at King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia

Undesirable Perioperative Anesthesia Outcomes at Two National Referral Hospitals, a cross sectional study in Eritrea

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About