The reverse stethoscope technique: a rapid intervention for old age hearing loss.

OBJECTIVES: Presbycusis is highly prevalent, affecting between a third and two-thirds of elderly populations. Effective communication between patient and physician has been shown to directly correlate with the quality of patient care. The Reverse Stethoscope Technique (RST) involves placing the earpieces into the patient's ears and speaking into the diaphragm. Here, we aim to show the RST is a simple and effective method to communicate with patients suffering from presbycusis in inpatient settings. METHODS: Medical inpatients aged >60 years old without cognitive impairment were included in the study. A simple repetition exercise of basic English sentences was performed with and without the RST to assess hearing ability. Patients then undertook a short questionnaire. RESULTS: Our study included 109 patients with varied 'self-reported' hearing. 50.5% of our cohort reported past communication difficulties with health-care professionals due to hearing difficulties. We identified that the RST increased the mean number of sentences a patient could repeat from 2.6 to 3.5 representing a statistically significant increase (p < 0.001). The technique was most beneficial for patients with 'okay' and 'poor' hearing. The majority of patients (77/109) also stated the technique reduced background noise. The RST was equally effective with facemasks. CONCLUSION: Current techniques to enhance communication with patients with hearing loss are often underutilized or poorly accessible. Our study identified that the RST is a quick and effective solution that can be easily implemented for patients struggling to communicate with health-care professionals in inpatient scenarios.

Adherence to published guidelines for perioperative care of the elderly: a survey of Scottish anaesthetic departments.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, a national enquiry into elderly patient outcomes after surgery identified that only 36% received 'good' care. Guidance was subsequently published by the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland regarding perioperative care of the elderly and those with dementia; this study aims to assess current adherence to these guidelines in anaesthetic departments across Scotland. METHODS: A web-based survey was sent to all Scottish departments. The questions assessed department patient demographic, access to specialist pre-assessment services, availability of multidisciplinary input, perioperative care of patients with cognitive impairment and departmental training on geriatric perioperative care. RESULTS: Responses were collected from November-December 2020 with a 92.6% response rate. A total of 64% of departments stated that > 50% of their workload involved patients over 75. One department had a lead clinician for geriatric anaesthesia, whilst 20% could access a geriatric specialist when coordinating perioperative care. Specialist geriatric pre-assessment services operate in 20% of centres. A total of 60% of respondents used a clinical frailty score when pre-assessing patients over 75, with 48% specifically screening for cognitive impairment. The vast majority of centres, 76%, did not routinely provide information regarding post-operative delirium and 24% 'never or very rarely' invite caregivers to accompany patients with dementia into the department. Education sessions regarding perioperative elderly care had occurred in 56% of departments. CONCLUSIONS: Elderly patients represent a significant proportion of anaesthetic workload in Scotland. Despite this, adherence to recommended practice is low. The vast majority of centres lack access to specialist multidisciplinary input or specialist pre-assessment services which are essential to providing good care. Reported screening for frailty and cognitive impairment is variable, with opportunities for improvement in communication and education (patient and clinician) surrounding these conditions.

The ALLEGRO trial: a placebo controlled randomised trial of intravenous lidocaine in accelerating gastrointestinal recovery after colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Return of gastrointestinal (GI) function is fundamental to patient recovery after colorectal surgery and is required before patients can be discharged from hospital safely. Up to 40% of patients suffer delayed return of GI function after colorectal surgery, causing nausea, vomiting and abdominal discomfort, resulting in longer hospital stay. Small, randomised studies have suggested perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine, which has analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects, may accelerate return of GI function after colorectal surgery. The ALLEGRO trial is a pragmatic effectiveness study to assess the benefit of perioperative IV lidocaine in improving return of GI function after elective minimally invasive (laparoscopic or robotic) colorectal surgery. METHODS: United Kingdom (UK) multi-centre double blind placebo-controlled randomised controlled trial in 562 patients undergoing elective minimally invasive colorectal resection. IV lidocaine or placebo will be infused for 6-12 h commencing at the start of surgery as an adjunct to usual analgesic/anaesthetic technique. The primary outcome will be return of GI function. DISCUSSION: A 6-12-h perioperative intravenous infusion of 2% lidocaine is a cheap addition to usual anaesthetic/analgesic practice in elective colorectal surgery with a low incidence of adverse side-effects. If successful in achieving quicker return of gut function for more patients, it would reduce the rate of postoperative ileus and reduce the duration of inpatient recovery, resulting in reduced pain and discomfort with faster recovery and discharge from hospital. Since colorectal surgery is a common procedure undertaken in every acute hospital in the UK, a reduced length of stay and reduced rate of postoperative ileus would accrue significant cost savings for the National Health Service (NHS). TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT Number 2017-003835-12; REC Number 17/WS/0210 the trial was prospectively registered (ISRCTN Number: ISRCTN52352431 ); date of registration 13 June 2018; date of enrolment of first participant 14 August 2018.

A survey about postoperative delirium in older patients among nurses and anaesthetists: implications for future practice and policy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium is a major complication associated with anaesthesia and surgery, more commonly seen in older people. AIMS: The aims of this study were to explore the knowledge and understanding of anaesthetists and nurses involved in anaesthesia through their responses to two case scenarios of postoperative delirium experienced by older people. METHODS: A 30-item online survey was sent to 500 potential respondents. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-six practitioners from Australia, New Zealand and Scotland responded. Most had no workplace protocols for anaesthesia planning in older people. There was substantial variability in practice in relation to postoperative delirium screening, detection, prevention and management. CONCLUSIONS: Improvements in education and awareness, together with a more coherent approach, for example, as recommended in the European Society of Anaesthesiology Guidelines, could help to reduce the impact of postoperative delirium in older people. This should be combined with ongoing research into perioperative optimisation of detection, prevention and management of postoperative delirium.

Is intravenous lidocaine protective against myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion injury after cardiac surgery?

A best evidence topic was constructed using a described protocol. The three-part question addressed was: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, does intravenous lidocaine exert a cardioprotective effect against postoperative myocardial ischaemia and reperfusion injury? Using the reported search, 461 papers were found, of which 5 studies represented the best evidence to answer the question. In 3 studies, lidocaine was associated with a postoperative fall in biomarkers of myocardial injury. An additional study lacked power, but the difference in biomarkers was marginally non-significant with a trend in favour of lidocaine. A final study evaluating ischaemic changes on continuous and 12 lead ECG found no benefit with lidocaine. The limited evidence suggests that lidocaine may be cardioprotective, although no study has demonstrated improvement in clinical outcomes. Furthermore, all trials were small studies with a multitude of dosing regimens in heterogenous patient populations. There is insufficient data to correlate dose with effect and not all studies measured plasma lidocaine concentration. The narrow therapeutic index and our current evidence base does not support lidocaine prophylaxis.

Enhanced recovery after surgery: Pain management.

Effective pain management is fundamental to enhanced recovery after surgery. Selection of strategies should be tailored to patient and operation. As well as improving the quality of recovery, effective analgesia reduces the host stress response, facilitates mobilization and allows resumption of oral intake. Multi-modal regimens combining paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents where indicated, a potent opioid and a local anaesthetic technique achieve effective analgesia while limiting the dose and thereby side effects of any one agent.

Efficacy of Intravenous Lidocaine for Postoperative Analgesia Following Laparoscopic Surgery: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intravenous (IV) lidocaine has analgesic and anti-inflammatory properties. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of IV lidocaine in controlling postoperative pain following laparoscopic surgery. METHODS: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IV lidocaine versus placebo/routine treatment for postoperative analgesia following laparoscopic surgery. The primary outcome was opiate requirement at 24 h. Secondary outcomes included cumulative opiate requirement, numerical pain scores (2, 12, 24, 48 h at rest and on movement), recovery indices (nausea and vomiting, length of stay, time until diet resumption, first flatus and bowel movement) and side effects (cardiac/neurological toxicity). Subgroup analyses were performed according to operation type and to compare IV lidocaine with intraperitoneal lidocaine. RESULTS: Fourteen RCTs with 742 patients were included. IV lidocaine was associated with a small but significant reduction in opiate requirement at 24 h compared with placebo/routine care. IV lidocaine was associated with reduced cumulative opiate requirement, reduced pain scores at rest at 2, 12 and 24 h, reduced nausea and vomiting and a shorter time until resumption of diet. The length of stay did not differ between groups. There was a low incidence of IV lidocaine-associated toxicity. In subgroup analyses, there was no difference between IV and intraperitoneal lidocaine in the measured outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: IV lidocaine has a multidimensional effect on the quality of recovery. IV lidocaine was associated with lower opiate requirements, reduced nausea and vomiting and a shorter time until resumption of diet. Whilst IV lidocaine appears safe, the optimal treatment regimen remains unknown. Statistical heterogeneity was high.

Long-term follow-up of pain and emotional characteristics of women after surgery for breast cancer.

CONTEXT: Persistent pain after treatment for breast cancer (PPBCT) is a common side effect of breast cancer treatment, with prevalence as high as 50%. It is predominantly a neuropathic condition. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this cross-sectional, questionnaire-based study was to examine the emotional characteristics of patients with PPBCT in long-term breast cancer patients. A secondary objective was to characterize the risk factors and severity of that pain. METHODS: From March 1, 2010 to April 9, 2010, long-term follow-up patients were invited to complete a questionnaire. This recorded their surgical and demographic data and ascertained whether they had PPBCT. If the patient had pain, she completed a range of validated self-report questionnaires and questions about the nature of the pain, including a visual analogue scale. RESULTS: One hundred eleven patients completed the questionnaire; 33 (29.7%) patients reported chronic pain at a median time of 64 months postoperatively (interquartile range 54.25). Patients with persistent pain were not significantly more anxious (t(105)=-0.369, P=0.713) or depressed (t(105)=0.713, P=0.507) than patients without pain. Patients with constant pain compared with intermittent pain were significantly more anxious (t(25)=-3.460, P=0.002). Preoperative pain conferred a fivefold increased risk of PPBCT (odds ratio [OR]=5.17, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.79-14.97, P=0.002); chemotherapy conferred a threefold increased risk (OR=3.004, 95% CI=1.22-7.40, P=0.017). CONCLUSION: We have shown significant numbers of patients suffer from PPBCT. At a median time of 64.5 months, women with pain are not significantly more anxious or depressed than women without pain. Preoperative pain and chemotherapy have been highlighted as risk factors.

Management of patients taking herbal medicines in the perioperative period: a survey of practice and policies within Anaesthetic Departments in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patients commonly take a combination of prescription drugs and herbal medicines. Often these alternative products have known pharmacological effects which may interact with drugs given perioperatively, resulting in adverse events. They can also cause physiological fluctuations which may influence the choice of anaesthetic technique used. This has been acknowledged by a number of national bodies that recommend eliciting a history of herbal medicine use preoperatively. This survey attempted to ascertain whether this guidance had been observed and turned into local policy. We also attempted to determine what advice patients were being given. METHODS: Three hundred and twenty-one questionnaires were sent to all United Kingdom hospitals with an Anaesthetic Department in September 2006. Reminders were then sent to those recipients who did not respond. RESULTS: Replies were received from 233 (72.6%) anaesthetic departments. Seventeen (7.3%) departments have a perioperative herbal medicine policy in place and a further six had plans to develop one. The majority (98.3%) of departments did not have a specific section for documenting herbal medicine use on their an aesthetic records. Of the departments that held pre-assessment clinics, 34 (15.7%) asked patients routinely about herbal medicine use, and the advice given regarding the use of herbal medicines was varied, and generally, not in accordance with existing guidelines. CONCLUSION: Anaesthetic departments in the United Kingdom are not currently following national advice regarding herbal medicine use. There is no coherence in the advice being offered to patients in the perioperative period, which may reflect the lack of information available. National guidelines may help clinicians understand the issues and adopt best practice.