Time to intubation with McGrath ™ videolaryngoscope versus direct laryngoscope in powered air-purifying respirator: a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION@#During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, multiple guidelines have recommended videolaryngoscope (VL) for tracheal intubation. However, there is no evidence that VL reduces time to tracheal intubation, and this is important for COVID-19 patients with respiratory failure.@*METHODS@#To simulate intubation of COVID-19 patients, we randomly assigned 28 elective surgical patients to be intubated with either McGrath™ MAC VL or direct laryngoscope (DL) by specialist anaesthetists who donned 3M™ Jupiter™ powered air-purifying respirators (PAPR) and N95 masks. The primary outcome was time to intubation.@*RESULTS@#The median time to intubation was 61 s (interquartile range [IQR] 37-63 s) and 41.5 s (IQR 37-56 s) in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.35). The closest mean distance between the anaesthetist and patient during intubation was 21.6 ± 4.8 cm and 17.6 ± 5.3 cm in the VL and DL groups, respectively ( P = 0.045). There were no significant differences in the median intubation difficulty scale scores, proportion of successful intubations at the first laryngoscopic attempt and proportion of intubations requiring adjuncts. All the patients underwent successful intubation with no adverse event.@*CONCLUSION@#There was no significant difference in the time to intubation of elective surgical patients with either McGrath™ VL or DL by specialist anaesthetists who donned PAPR and N95 masks. The distance between the anaesthetist and patient was significantly greater with VL. When resources are limited or disrupted during a pandemic, DL could be a viable alternative to VL for specialist anaesthetists.

Achieving 100 percent compliance to perioperative antibiotic administration: a quality improvement initiative

INTRODUCTION@#Timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics within 60 minutes before surgical incision is important for reducing surgical site infections. This quality improvement initiative aimed to work towards achieving 100% compliance with perioperative antibiotic administration.@*METHODS@#We examined the workflow in our Anaesthesia Information Management System (AIMS) and proposed interventions using cause-and-effect analysis of anonymised anaesthetic records from eligible surgical cases extracted from AIMS. This ultimately led to the implementation of an antibiotic pop-up reminder. The overall process was done in a few small plan-do-study-act cycles involving raising awareness, education and reorganisation of AIMS before implementation of the antibiotic pop-up reminder. Data analysis took place from August 2014 to September 2016. Compliance was defined as documented antibiotic administration within 60 minutes before surgical incision, or as documented reason for omission.@*RESULTS@#The median monthly compliance rate, for 33,038 cases before and 28,315 cases after the reminder was implemented, increased from 67.0% at baseline to 94.5%. This increase was consistent and sustained for a year despite frequent personnel turnover. Documentation of antibiotic administration also improved from 81.7% to 99.3%, allowing us to identify and address novel problems that were initially not apparent, and resulting in several department recommendations. These included administering antibiotics later for cases with predicted longer-than-expected preparation times and bringing forward antibiotic administration in lower-segment Caesarean sections.@*CONCLUSION@#The use of information technology and implementation of an antibiotic pop-up reminder on AIMS streamlined our work processes and brought us closer to achieving 100% on-time compliance with perioperative antibiotic administration.