Recommendations for standards of monitoring during anaesthesia and recovery 2015: Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland.

This guideline updates and replaces the 4th edition of the AAGBI Standards of Monitoring published in 2007. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on the minimum standards for physiological monitoring of any patient undergoing anaesthesia or sedation under the care of an anaesthetist. The recommendations are primarily aimed at anaesthetists practising in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Minimum standards for monitoring patients during anaesthesia and in the recovery phase are included. There is also guidance on monitoring patients undergoing sedation and also during transfer of anaesthetised or sedated patients. There are new sections discussing the role of monitoring depth of anaesthesia, neuromuscular blockade and cardiac output. The indications for end-tidal carbon dioxide monitoring have been updated.

Impact of national guidelines on reporting anaphylaxis during anaesthesia -- an outcome audit.

AIMS: Anaphylaxis during anaesthesia is a rare and potentially fatal event. Adequate reporting and investigation of anaphylaxis associated with anaesthesia results in improved patient safety and outcomes. Guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain and Ireland (AAGBI) designed to improve this process were first issued in 1990 and updated in 1995, 2003 and 2008. In a setting where no formal guideline was previously in place, we compared the reporting and investigation of anaphylaxis in a large hospital before and after the introduction of the 2008 guideline. METHODS: A retrospective outcome audit was conducted to compare data from 12 patients referred from April 2006 to May 2008 prior to release of the 2008 AAGBI guidance, with 53 patients referred from 2008 until April 2011. Data were collected using the AAGBI Anaphylaxis Referral Form. RESULTS: There was an increase in the number of referrals for suspected anaphylaxis following implementation of the AAGBI guidance. The clinical features observed in patients were consistent with previous studies. There was improved documentation of referral to local and national databases. Most cases resulted in cancellation of surgery, and there were no patient deaths. A substantial increase in the number of patients with amoxicillin allergy was noted in the second time period, which was linked to a change in the local perioperative antibiotic policy. CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of the AAGBI guidelines locally in a large hospital in 2008 resulted in an improved awareness of the importance of reporting and investigation of suspected anaphylaxis under anaesthesia. This tool was implemented coincidentally with the change in hospital antibiotic prophylaxis and enabled the cases detected to be accurately recorded and investigated. This led to a change in the hospital antibiotic policy for surgical prophylaxis. Implementation of structured guidance from a national anaesthesia organisation enhances recognition of the clinical features of anaphylaxis, increases number and completeness of referrals and more thorough immunological investigation, leading to improved patient safety during anaesthesia.