Chemical toxic exposures and chronic ocular pain.

Chronic ocular pain is a common, debilitating chronic pain condition with significant morbidity and negative impact in patients' quality of life. Several, diverse types of insults to the ocular surface can lead to acute, and under certain conditions to chronic ocular pain, and these include toxic irritants. Exposure of ocular surface to toxic irritants, in addition to direct tissue injury, carries the capacity to generated intense immune and neuronal responses with hyper-excitability, sensitization and chronic pain. Because, chronic ocular pain subsequent to toxic exposures is relatively unrecognized clinical entity, this brief review highlights pertinent concepts of its epidemiology, pathogenesis/pathophysiology, clinical progression, with recommendations for its clinical management that clinicians may find helpful. Suppression of pain signaling, generating neuronal sensitization, and prevention of chronicity of neuropathic pain is particularly emphasized in this respect.

Descriptive Analysis of Federal and State Interventional Pain Malpractice Litigation in the United States: A Pilot Investigation.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. OBJECTIVES: To examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective review. SETTING: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. METHODS: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Data collected for each case included year, state, patient age, patient gender, defendant specialty, legal outcome, award amount, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors in plaintiff's decision to file. After elimination of duplicates and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria to our initial search yielding over 1,500 cases, a total of 82 cases were included in this study. RESULTS: A total of 57.3% of cases resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, whereas 41.5% favored the plaintiff. When comparing cases that were performed in the operating room to cases performed outside the operating room, we found the jury verdicts to favor the plaintiff 83.3% of the time for operating room procedures (P = 0.003). In other words, interventional pain practitioners were more likely to be found at fault for complications from procedures performed in the operating room. To eliminate confounders, a logistical regression was performed and confirmed operating room procedures were an independent predictor of a verdict awarded to the plaintiff (P = 0.008). The median amount awarded to the plaintiff for all cases was $333,000, and the single highest award amount was $36,636,288. The median payout for operating room procedures was $450,000 (P = 0.010), which was significantly different from the median payout for nonoperating room procedures. Procedure categorization demonstrated a statistically significant difference in jury verdicts (P = 0.01411) and procedural error was the leading reason for pursuing litigation, followed by lack of informed consent and unnecessary procedure performed. LIMITATIONS: There is more than one database that captures medicolegal claims brought against practitioners. Westlaw, which has been previously utilized by other studies, is only one of them and the extent to which overlap exists in unclear. For each, data input are not necessarily consistent and data capture are not complete. As a result, there could exist a skew toward more severe complications and the details of individual cases likely vary. During data extraction, we found that all details of the procedure were not always included. For example, not all cases specified the type of injectate utilized for epidural injection (i.e., local anesthetic, steroid, mixture, and others) or route of injection (i.e., transforaminal vs. interlaminar). Moreover, as previously mentioned, cases that are settled out of court or finalized prior to trial are not necessarily reported by the Westlaw database, and therefore were not always included in our data search. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, interventional pain medicine physicians were favored by jury verdicts for malpractice claims. However, when filtering by procedure or setting, jury verdicts favored the plaintiff in some cases. KEY WORDS: Interventional pain, medical, malpractice, anesthesiology.

Auditory Icon Alarms Are More Accurately and Quickly Identified than Current Standard Melodic Alarms in a Simulated Clinical Setting.

BACKGROUND: Current standard audible medical alarms are difficult to learn and distinguish from one another. Auditory icons represent a new type of alarm that has been shown to be easier to learn and identify in laboratory settings by lay subjects. In this study, we test the hypothesis that icon alarms are easier to learn and identify than standard alarms by anesthesia providers in a simulated clinical setting. METHODS: Twenty anesthesia providers were assigned to standard or icon groups. Experiments were conducted in a simulated intensive care unit. After a brief group-specific alarm orientation, subjects identified patient-associated alarm sounds during the simulation and logged responses via a tablet computer. Each subject participated in the simulation twice and was exposed to 32 alarm annunciations. Primary outcome measures were response accuracy and response times. Secondary outcomes included assessments of perceived fatigue and task load. RESULTS: Overall accuracy rate in the standard alarm group was 43% (mean) and in the icon group was 88% (mean). Subjects in the icon group were 26.1 (odds ratio [98.75% CI, 8.4 to 81.5; P < 0.001]) times more likely to correctly identify an alarm. Response times in the icon group were shorter than in the standard alarm group (12 vs. 15 s, difference 3 s [98.75% CI ,1 to 5; P < 0.001]). CONCLUSIONS: Under our simulated conditions, anesthesia providers more correctly and quickly identified icon alarms than standard alarms. Subjects were more likely to perceive higher fatigue and task load when using current standard alarms than icon alarms.

Factors Affecting Acoustics and Speech Intelligibility in the Operating Room: Size Matters.

INTRODUCTION: Noise in health care settings has increased since 1960 and represents a significant source of dissatisfaction among staff and patients and risk to patient safety. Operating rooms (ORs) in which effective communication is crucial are particularly noisy. Speech intelligibility is impacted by noise, room architecture, and acoustics. For example, sound reverberation time (RT60) increases with room size, which can negatively impact intelligibility, while room objects are hypothesized to have the opposite effect. We explored these relationships by investigating room construction and acoustics of the surgical suites at our institution. METHODS: We studied our ORs during times of nonuse. Room dimensions were measured to calculate room volumes (VR). Room content was assessed by estimating size and assigning items into 5 volume categories to arrive at an adjusted room content volume (VC) metric. Psychoacoustic analyses were performed by playing sweep tones from a speaker and recording the impulse responses (ie, resulting sound fields) from 3 locations in each room. The recordings were used to calculate 6 psychoacoustic indices of intelligibility. Multiple linear regression was performed using VR and VC as predictor variables and each intelligibility index as an outcome variable. RESULTS: A total of 40 ORs were studied. The surgical suites were characterized by a large degree of construction and surface finish heterogeneity and varied in size from 71.2 to 196.4 m (average VR = 131.1 [34.2] m). An insignificant correlation was observed between VR and VC (Pearson correlation = 0.223, P = .166). Multiple linear regression model fits and ß coefficients for VR were highly significant for each of the intelligibility indices and were best for RT60 (R = 0.666, F(2, 37) = 39.9, P < .0001). For Dmax (maximum distance where there is <15% loss of consonant articulation), both VR and VC ß coefficients were significant. For RT60 and Dmax, after controlling for VC, partial correlations were 0.825 (P < .0001) and 0.718 (P < .0001), respectively, while after controlling for VR, partial correlations were -0.322 (P = .169) and 0.381 (P < .05), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the size and contents of an OR can predict a range of psychoacoustic indices of speech intelligibility. Specifically, increasing OR size correlated with worse speech intelligibility, while increasing amounts of OR contents correlated with improved speech intelligibility. This study provides valuable descriptive data and a predictive method for identifying existing ORs that may benefit from acoustic modifiers (eg, sound absorption panels). Additionally, it suggests that room dimensions and projected clinical use should be considered during the design phase of OR suites to optimize acoustic performance.