Type 1 and other types of diabetes mellitus in the perioperative period. What the anaesthetist should know.

Diabetes mellitus is often treated as a uniform disease in the perioperative period. Type 2 diabetes is most commonly encountered, and only a minority of surgical patients have been diagnosed with another type of diabetes. Patients with a specific type of diabetes can be particularly prone to perioperative glycaemic dysregulation. In addition, certain type-related features and pitfalls should be taken into account in the operating theatre. In this narrative review, we discuss characteristics of types of diabetes other than type 2 diabetes relevant to the anaesthetist, based on available literature and data from our clinic.

Anaesthetists' current practice and perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures: a mixed-methods study.

The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Centre for Perioperative Care, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.

Teaching safety - Resident anaesthetists at the forefront of COVID-19.

We aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on anaesthesiology residents in a COVID-19 hub hospital in Latium and ascertain their level of perceived justice and work-related stress. Residents and specialist anaesthesiologists were recruited during April-May 2020. Informational and procedural justice were measured with the Organizational Justice questionnaire; work-related stress was measured with the Effort Reward Imbalance questionnaire. Interns perceived a significantly lower level of informational justice than specialists. Organizational justice protected from occupational stress (OR=0.860, CI95% 0.786-0.940). Our findings suggest that it would be useful to improve knowledge of safety measures in trainees, increasing their confidence in work organization and reducing stress.

'Dear Doctor': a randomised controlled trial of a text message intervention to reduce burnout in trainee anaesthetists.

One in four doctors in training in the UK reports feeling 'burnt out' due to their work and similar figures are reported in other countries. This two-group non-blinded randomised controlled trial aimed to determine if a novel text message intervention could reduce burnout and increase well-being in UK trainee anaesthetists. A total of 279 trainee anaesthetists (Core Training Year 2, Specialty Training Years 3 or 4) were included. All participants received one initial message sharing support resources. The intervention group (139 trainees) received 22 fortnightly text messages over approximately 10 months. Messages drew on 11 evidence-based themes including: gratitude; social support; self-efficacy; and self-compassion. Primary outcomes were burnout (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory) and well-being (Short Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale). Secondary outcomes were as follows: meaning in work; professional value; sickness absence; and consideration of career break. Outcomes were measured via online surveys. Measures of factors that may have affected well-being were included post-hoc, including the impact of COVID-19 (the first UK wave of which coincided with the second half of the trial). The final survey was completed by 153 trainees (74 in the intervention and 79 in the control groups). There were no significant group differences in: burnout (ß = -1.82, 95%CI -6.54-2.91, p = 0.45); well-being (-0.52, -1.73-0.69, p = 0.40); meaning (-0.09, -0.67-0.50, p = 0.77); value (-0.01, -0.67-0.66, p = 0.99); sick days (0.88, -2.08-3.83, p = 0.56); or consideration of career break (OR = 0.44, -0.30-1.18, p = 0.24). Exploratory post-hoc analysis found the intervention was associated with reduced burnout in participants reporting personal or work-related difficulties during the trial period (-9.56, -17.35 to -1.77, p = 0.02) and in participants reporting that the COVID-19 pandemic had a big negative impact on their well-being (-10.38, -20.57 to -0.19, p = 0.05). Overall, this trial found the intervention had no impact. However, given this intervention is low cost and requires minimal time commitment from recipients, it may warrant adaptation and further evaluation.

A report on virtual 'Can't intubate, can't oxygenate' conference workshops at the 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound implications for continuing medical education. Travel restrictions, lockdowns and social distancing in an effort to curb spread have meant that medical conferences have been postponed or cancelled. When the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists made the decision to commit to a fully virtual 2021 Annual Scientific Meeting, the organising committee investigated the viability of presenting a virtual 'Can't intubate, can't oxygenate' workshop. A workshop was designed comprising a lecture, case scenario discussion and demonstration of emergency front-of-neck access techniques broadcast from a central hub before participants separated into Zoom® (Zoom Video Communications, San Jose, CA, USA) breakout rooms for hands-on practice, guided by facilitators working virtually from their own home studios. Kits containing equipment including a 3D printed larynx, cannula, scalpel and bougie were sent to workshop participants in the weeks before the meeting. Participants were asked to complete pre- and post-workshop surveys. Of 42 participants, 32 responded, with the majority rating the workshop 'better than expected'. All except two respondents felt the workshop met learning objectives. Themes of positive feedback included being impressed with the airway model, the small group size, content and delivery. Feedback focused on previously unperceived advantages of virtual technical skills workshops, including convenience, equitable access and the reusable airway model. Disadvantages noted by respondents included lack of social interaction, inability to trial more expensive airway equipment, and some limitations of the ability of facilitators to review participants' technique. Despite limitations, in our experience, virtual workshops can be planned with innovative solutions to deliver technical skills education successfully.

Anxiety and burnout in anesthetists and intensive care unit nurses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to measure the levels of anxiety and burnout among healthcare workers, including attending physicians, residents, and nurses in intensive care units during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional survey analysis of healthcare workers in our institution. Data were collected on demographic variables, COVID-19 symptoms and test, disease status, anxiety level (assessed by the Beck Anxiety Inventory), and burnout level (measured by the Maslach Burnout Inventory). Subscales of the burnout inventory were evaluated separately. RESULTS: A total of 104 participants completed the survey. Attending physicians, residents, and nurses constituted 25%, 33.7%, and 41.3% of the cohort, respectively. In comparison to untested participants, those tested for COVID-19 had a lower mean age (p = 0.02), higher emotional exhaustion and depersonalization scores (p = 0.001, 0.004, respectively), and lower personal accomplishment scores (p = 0.004). Furthermore, moderate to severe anxiety was observed more frequently in tested participants than untested ones (p = 0.022). Moderate or severe anxiety was seen in 23.1% of the attending physicians, 54.3% of the residents, and 48.8% of the nurses (p = 0.038). Emotional exhaustion, personal accomplishment, and depersonalization scores differed depending on the position of the healthcare workers (p = 0.034, 0.001, 0.004, respectively). CONCLUSION: This study revealed higher levels of anxiety and burnout in younger healthcare workers and those tested for COVID-19, which mainly included residents and nurses. The reasons for these observations should be further investigated to protect their mental health.

SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 and timing of elective surgery: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, the Centre for Peri-operative Care, the Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic means that a significant number of patients who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will require surgery. Given the potential for multisystem involvement, timing of surgery needs to be carefully considered to plan for safe surgery. This consensus statement uses evidence from a systematic review and expert opinion to highlight key principles in the timing of surgery. Shared decision-making regarding timing of surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection must account for severity of the initial infection; ongoing symptoms of COVID-19; comorbid and functional status; clinical priority and risk of disease progression; and complexity of surgery. For the protection of staff, other patients and the public, planned surgery should not be considered during the period that a patient may be infectious. Precautions should be undertaken to prevent pre- and peri-operative infection, especially in higher risk patients. Elective surgery should not be scheduled within 7 weeks of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection unless the risks of deferring surgery outweigh the risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality associated with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 causes either transient or asymptomatic disease for most patients, who require no additional precautions beyond a 7-week delay, but those who have persistent symptoms or have been hospitalised require special attention. Patients with persistent symptoms of COVID-19 are at increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality even after 7 weeks. The time before surgery should be used for functional assessment, prehabilitation and multidisciplinary optimisation. Vaccination several weeks before surgery will reduce risk to patients and might lessen the risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection of other patients and staff. National vaccine committees should consider whether such patients can be prioritised for vaccination. As further data emerge, these recommendations may need to be revised, but the principles presented should be considered to ensure safety of patients, the public and staff.

Impact of the intersection of anaesthesia and gender on burnout and mental health, illustrated by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Physician burnout and poor mental health are prevalent and often stigmatised. Anaesthetists may be at particular risk and this is further increased for women anaesthetists due to biases and inequities within the specialty. However, gender-related risk factors for and experiences of burnout and poor mental health remain under-researched and under-reported. This negatively impacts individual practitioners, the anaesthesia workforce and patients and carries significant financial implications. We discuss the impact of anaesthesia and gender on burnout and mental health using the COVID-19 pandemic as an example illustrating how women and men differentially experience stressors and burnout. COVID-19 has further accentuated the gendered effects of burnout and poor mental health on anaesthetists and brought further urgency to the need to address these issues. While both personal and organisational factors contribute to burnout and poor mental health, organisational changes that recognise and acknowledge inequities are pivotal to bolster physician mental health.