Inadequate neuraxial anaesthesia during caesarean delivery: a survey of practitioners.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the knowledge, training, practices and attitudes of obstetric anaesthetic practitioners with regard to failed neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery. METHOD: We performed a contemporaneous and representative survey in an innovative fashion. We conducted an international cross-sectional study of obstetric anaesthetic practitioners at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Obstetric Anaesthetists' Association (OAA 2021). Validated survey questions were collected in real time using an audience response system. RESULTS: Of the 426 participants who logged into the survey system, 356 provided responses (4173 responses to 13 questions, across all grades/seniority of practitioner). The number of responses to questions ranged from 81% to 61%. Survey responses suggest that it is routine for respondents to inform patients about the difference between pain and expected intra-operative sensations, (320/327, 97.9%) but less routine to inform patients of the risk of intra-operative pain (204/260, 78.5%), or the possibility of conversion to general anaesthesia. (290/309 93.8%). Only 30% of respondents reported the use of written guidelines for follow-up of patients who experience intra-operative pain under neuraxial anaesthesia, and only 23% reported formal training in management of intra-operative pain under neuraxial anaesthesia. Respondents felt that inadequate block duration, prolonged surgery, and patient anxiety were contributory factors to failed anaesthesia, and the contributory factors differed between grade/seniority of practitioner. Modalities used to test a block were cold, motor block and light touch, with approximately 65% of respondents routinely using three modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Our study survey found that the consent process may not always be adequately comprehensive, and that standardised documentation and testing of the block and focused training may be beneficial to prevent patient dissatisfaction and the chance of litigation.

Learning from the law: a review of 21 years of litigation for anaesthetic negligence resulting in peripartum hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy.

One of the most devastating complications that can result from medical mismanagement during labour and delivery is hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy has profound implications for the newborn and its family, as well as for the healthcare team involved. Hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy can take only minutes to develop, but the repercussions of this complication can last a lifetime. A proportion of these injuries arise from failure to deliver the baby within a sufficiently short time frame once fetal compromise has been recognised. Obstetric anaesthetists are often involved in such claims, usually in relation to a perception that provision of anaesthesia for caesarean section was unduly delayed. In the following article, using a database of over 360 cases spanning 21 years, we break down and examine the recurrent components of medicolegal claims concerning the anaesthetic involvement in hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy, and consider how increased awareness of the anaesthetic contribution to this complication might reduce future harm, improve clinical standards and consequently decrease the need for litigation.

Prevention and management of intra-operative pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia: a technical and interpersonal approach.

A woman who experiences pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia is at risk of adverse psychological sequelae. Litigation arising from pain during caesarean section under neuraxial anaesthesia has replaced accidental awareness under general anaesthesia as the most common successful medicolegal claim against obstetric anaesthetists. Generic guidelines on caesarean section exist, but they do not provide specific recommendations for this area of anaesthetic practice. This guidance aims to offer pragmatic advice to support anaesthetists in caring for women during caesarean section. It emphasises the importance of non-technical skills, offers advice on best practice and aims to encourage standardisation. The guidance results from a collaborative effort by anaesthetists, psychologists and patients and has been developed to support clinicians and promote standardisation of practice in this area.

Regional anaesthesia: risk, consent and complications.

The risks of regional anaesthesia relate primarily to the technical nature of the procedure, chief among them being neurological. While rare, the direct relationship between nerve damage and the procedure itself means that patients need to be aware of this complication when consent is sought. In order to give valid consent, a patient must be informed. The extent of the information required has been defined by a 2015 legal ruling which established that the standard is the expectation of a reasonable patient, rather than the information deemed consequential by a reasonable doctor. The implications of this for clinicians are profound, and mean that the process of consent must, for example, include alternatives to the proposed treatment. Additionally, patients must have capacity and give their consent without coercion. Effective communication of risk can be challenging. As well as the barriers to comprehension that can result from language, literacy and numeracy, clinicians need to be aware of their own biases, often in favour of a regional anaesthetic approach. Patients also have biases, and doctors must be aware of these in order to best target their provision of information. Careful use of language and employing adjuncts such as information leaflets and visual aids can help to maximise the individual's autonomy. Particular care must be taken in special situations such as where patients have capacity issues or time is limited by the emergency nature of the intervention.

Audio/visual recording of doctors in hospitals: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists.

Guidelines are presented that summarise the legal position regarding the audio/visual recording of doctors and others in hospitals. In general, there are few, if any, legal grounds for refusing a request by patients to record procedures and/or discussions with clinicians, although some staff may feel uncomfortable being recorded. Trusts and others are advised to draw up local policies and ensure staff and patients are adequately informed.

Learning from the law. A review of 21 years of litigation for nerve injury following central neuraxial blockade in obstetrics.

Medicolegal claims for neurological injury following the use of central neuraxial blockade in childbirth represent the second most common claim against obstetric anaesthetists. We present an analysis of 55 cases from a database of 368 obstetric anaesthetic claims. Common themes that emerge from the analysis include: consent; nature of nerve injury (non-anaesthetic; direct; chemical; compressive); recognition; and management. Specific advice arising from these cases includes: the importance of informing patients of the risks of nerve damage; keeping below the conus of the cord for intrathecal procedures; responding appropriately if a patient complains of paraesthesia; and having a high index of suspicion if recovery of normal neurological function is delayed. As ever, principles of good practice, including respect for patient autonomy, early provision of information, good communication and a high standard of record-keeping, will minimise the frustration of patients that can then lead them to seek a legal route to redress if they suffer an injury following central neuraxial blockade.

Complications in obstetric anaesthesia.

'Obstetric anaesthesia is a litigious area of medical practice - patient expectations are high, and many of the interventions undertaken by anaesthetists are performed urgently or emergently, frequently out of hours. The complications that occur during obstetric practice are not unique to this area of anaesthesia, but some of the physiological and anatomical changes that take place during pregnancy can affect the frequency with which these happen. In this narrative review, we hope to cover a few of the more common complications in obstetric anaesthesia, as well as some of the more severe, yet less frequently occurring problems.

Learning from the Law. A review of 21 years of litigation for pain during caesarean section.

The large majority of caesarean sections in the UK are now carried out under neuraxial anaesthesia. Although this technique is widely accepted as being the safest option in most circumstances, the use of regional anaesthesia increases the risk of patients experiencing intra-operative discomfort or pain. Pain during operative obstetric delivery is the commonest successful negligence claim relating to regional anaesthesia against obstetric anaesthetists in the UK. In the following article, using a database of over 360 cases spanning 21 years, we break down and examine the recurrent components of medicolegal claims concerning pain during caesarean section and consider how anaesthetists might avoid litigation.

Strength of commonly used spinal needles: the ability to deform and resist deformation.

We investigated the strength of commonly used spinal needles in relation to the amount of deformation, and registered forces during standardised testing. We investigated differences between manufacturers for the same length and gauge of Luer and non-Luer needles, and examined the effect of the internal stylet in terms of needle strength. A specialised rig was designed to perform the testing in both the horizontal and axial plane, reflecting common industrial tests and clinical use. Needles from four commonly used manufacturers were used (Vygon, Becton Dickinson, B Braun, and Pajunk). Needles of 25 G and 27 G were tested in 90-mm and 120-mm lengths. We found significant differences in terms of the size of final deformation and 'toughness'/resistance to deformation between needles of different brands. There were also significant differences between horizontal tests conducted as an industry standard and our own axial test. This may have bearing on clinical use in terms of the incidence of bending and breakage. The presence of the internal stylet resulted in significantly greater toughness in many needles, but had little effect on the degree of deformation. Comparison of Luer and non-Luer needles of the same brand and size showed few significant differences in strength. This result is reassuring, given the imminent change from Luer to non-Luer needles that is to occur in the UK.

Flow characteristics of Luer and non-Luer spinal needles.

We investigated the flow rates of 25-G and 27-G spinal needles, of 90-mm and 120-mm lengths, from Vygon, BD, B. Braun and Pajunk; the needles had either a Luer connector, or a Surety® or UniVia® non-Luer connector. We used a bench-top model of entering the spinal space, pressurised to 35 cmH2 O to simulate cerebrospinal fluid pressure in the sitting position. We examined the time to first appearance of simulated cerebrospinal fluid in the needle hub, as well as the amount of fluid collected over 120 s after the needle was introduced. The mean (SD) times to first appearance of fluid in the needle hub of Luer spinal needles varied from 0.36 (0.22) s for the 25-G 90-mm BD to 3.14 (0.72) s for the 27-G 120-mm B. Braun, and in the non-Luer spinal needles from 0.22 (0.17) s for the 25-G 90-mm B. Braun to 2.99 (0.71) s for the 27-G 120-mm Pajunk. There was a significant difference in the time to first appearance of fluid in the needle hub between Luer and non-Luer needles of the same type for seven of 14 comparisons made, of which four showed slower appearance of fluid in the non-Luer version. In some of these cases, the time to appearance of fluid was nearly twice as long with the non-Luer counterpart. The mean (SD) weight of fluid collected in 120 s using the Luer spinal needles varied from 0.21 (0.05) g for the 27-G 120-mm Pajunk to 1.21 (0.18) g for the 25-G 90-mm Vygon, and using the non-Luer spinal needles from 0.25 (0.05) g for the 27-G 120-mm Pajunk to 1.55 (0.05) g for the 25-G 90-mm B. Braun. All of the needle types showed a greater weight of fluid collected using the non-Luer compared with the Luer version, with six of the 14 needle types showing a significant difference. Significant variations in flow were also seen between the same needle type from different manufacturers. We conclude that changing from Luer to non-Luer versions of spinal needles does not merely change the hub design and connection, but may introduce important differences in function.

AAGBI: Consent for anaesthesia 2017: Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

Previous guidelines on consent for anaesthesia were issued by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland in 1999 and revised in 2006. The following guidelines have been produced in response to the changing ethical and legal background against which anaesthetists, and also intensivists and pain specialists, currently work, while retaining the key principles of respect for patients' autonomy and the need to provide adequate information. The main points of difference between the relevant legal frameworks in England and Wales and Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are also highlighted.

High-flow humidified nasal oxygenation vs. standard face mask oxygenation.

Ten healthy volunteers received oxygen for 1 min, 2 min and 3 min at 10 l.min-1 via a face mask, or humidified oxygen at 60 l.min-1 via nasal prongs (OptiflowTM ) with the mouth closed and with the mouth open. The mean (SD) end-tidal oxygen partial pressure after 3 min face mask and Optiflow oxygenation, with mouth closed and open, were: 88.5 (6.2) kPa; 85.6 (6.4) kPa and 48.7 (26.4) kPa, respectively, p = 0.001. The equivalent mean (SD) transcutaneous oxygen partial pressures were: 34.6 (5.4) kPa; 36.4 (6.5) kPa and 25.5 (15.7) kPa, respectively, p = 0.03. High-flow humidified nasal oxygenation for 3 min with the mouth closed was as effective as 3 min face mask oxygenation.

Safety guideline: skin antisepsis for central neuraxial blockade.

Concise guidelines are presented that recommend the method of choice for skin antisepsis before central neuraxial blockade. The Working Party specifically considered the concentration of antiseptic agent to use and its method of application. The advice presented is based on previously published guidelines, laboratory and clinical studies, case reports, and on the known properties of antiseptic agents.