Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Anesth Analg ; 135(4): 697-703, 2022 10 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36108183

ABSTRACT

ADDENDUM: Please note that in the interim since this paper was accepted for publication, new governmental regulations, pertinent to the topic, have been approved for implementation. The reader is thus directed to this online addendum for additional relevant information: http://links.lww.com/AA/E44.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia , Anesthesiology , Humans
2.
Anesthesiology ; 134(1): 61-71, 2021 01 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33125457

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Disease severity in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be associated with inoculation dose. This has triggered interest in intubation barrier devices to block droplet exposure; however, aerosol protection with these devices is not known. This study hypothesized that barrier devices reduce aerosol outside of the barrier. METHODS: Aerosol containment in closed, semiclosed, semiopen, and open barrier devices was investigated: (1) "glove box" sealed with gloves and caudal drape, (2) "drape tent" with a drape placed over a frame, (3) "slit box" with armholes and caudal end covered by vinyl slit diaphragms, (4) original "aerosol box," (5) collapsible "interlocking box," (6) "simple drape" over the patient, and (7) "no barrier." Containment was investigated by (1) vapor instillation at manikin's right arm with video-assisted visual evaluation and (2) submicrometer ammonium sulfate aerosol particles ejected through the manikin's mouth with ventilation and coughs. Samples were taken from standardized locations inside and around the barriers using a particle counter and a mass spectrometer. Aerosol evacuation from the devices was measured using standard hospital suction, a surgical smoke evacuator, and a Shop-Vac. RESULTS: Vapor experiments demonstrated leakage via arm holes and edges. Only closed and semiclosed devices and the aerosol box reduced aerosol particle counts (median [25th, 75th percentile]) at the operator's mouth compared to no barrier (combined median 29 [-11, 56], n = 5 vs. 157 [151, 166], n = 5). The other barrier devices provided less reduction in particle counts (133 [128, 137], n = 5). Aerosol evacuation to baseline required 15 min with standard suction and the Shop-Vac and 5 min with a smoke evacuator. CONCLUSIONS: Barrier devices may reduce exposure to droplets and aerosol. With meticulous tucking, the glove box and drape tent can retain aerosol during airway management. Devices that are not fully enclosed may direct aerosol toward the laryngoscopist. Aerosol evacuation reduces aerosol content inside fully enclosed devices. Barrier devices must be used in conjunction with body-worn personal protective equipment.


Subject(s)
Aerosols/analysis , COVID-19/prevention & control , Occupational Exposure/analysis , Occupational Exposure/prevention & control , Personal Protective Equipment , Aerosols/adverse effects , Cough/prevention & control , Cough/virology , Health Personnel , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal/adverse effects
3.
Anesth Analg ; 131(6): 1911-1922, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33105281

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Postoperative delirium is a common and serious problem for older adults. To better align local practices with delirium prevention consensus guidelines, we implemented a 5-component intervention followed by a quality improvement (QI) project at our institution. METHODS: This hybrid implementation-effectiveness study took place at 2 adult hospitals within a tertiary care academic health care system. We implemented a 5-component intervention: preoperative delirium risk stratification, multidisciplinary education, written memory aids, delirium prevention postanesthesia care unit (PACU) orderset, and electronic health record enhancements between December 1, 2017 and June 30, 2018. This was followed by a department-wide QI project to increase uptake of the intervention from July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019. We tracked process outcomes during the QI period, including frequency of preoperative delirium risk screening, percentage of "high-risk" screens, and frequency of appropriate PACU orderset use. We measured practice change after the interventions using interrupted time series analysis of perioperative medication prescribing practices during baseline (December 1, 2016 to November 30, 2017), intervention (December 1, 2017 to June 30, 2018), and QI (July 1, 2018 to June 30, 2019) periods. Participants were consecutive older patients (≥65 years of age) who underwent surgery during the above timeframes and received care in the PACU, compared to a concurrent control group <65 years of age. The a priori primary outcome was a composite of perioperative American Geriatrics Society Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use (Beers PIM) medications. The secondary outcome, delirium incidence, was measured in the subset of older patients who were admitted to the hospital for at least 1 night. RESULTS: During the 12-month QI period, preoperative delirium risk stratification improved from 67% (714 of 1068 patients) in month 1 to 83% in month 12 (776 of 931 patients). Forty percent of patients were stratified as "high risk" during the 12-month period (4246 of 10,494 patients). Appropriate PACU orderset use in high-risk patients increased from 19% in month 1 to 85% in month 12. We analyzed medication use in 7212, 4416, and 8311 PACU care episodes during the baseline, intervention, and QI periods, respectively. Beers PIM administration decreased from 33% to 27% to 23% during the 3 time periods, with adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.97 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95-0.998; P = .03) per month during the QI period in comparison to baseline. Delirium incidence was 7.5%, 9.2%, and 8.5% during the 3 time periods with aOR of delirium of 0.98 (95% CI, 0.91-1.05, P = .52) per month during the QI period in comparison to baseline. CONCLUSIONS: A perioperative delirium prevention intervention was associated with reduced administration of Beers PIMs to older adults.


Subject(s)
Electronic Health Records/standards , Emergence Delirium/prevention & control , Perioperative Care/standards , Practice Guidelines as Topic/standards , Aged , Emergence Delirium/etiology , Female , Humans , Male , Perioperative Care/methods , Treatment Outcome
4.
BMC Anesthesiol ; 15: 93, 2015 Jun 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26082147

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Learning from adverse events and near misses may reduce the incidence of preventable errors. Current literature on adverse events and near misses in the ICU focuses on errors reported by nurses and intensivists. ICU near misses identified by anesthesia providers may reveal critical events, causal mechanisms and system weaknesses not identified by other providers, and may differ in character and causality from near misses in other anesthesia locations. METHODS: We analyzed events reported to our anesthesia near miss reporting system from 2009 to 2011. We compared causative mechanisms of ICU near misses with near misses in other anesthesia locations. RESULTS: A total of 1,811 near misses were reported, of which 22 (1.2 %) originated in the ICU. Five causal mechanisms explained over half of ICU near misses. Compared to near misses from other locations, near misses from the ICU were more likely to occur while on call (45 % vs. 19 %, p = 0.001), and were more likely to be associated with airway management (50 % vs. 12 %, p < 0.001). ICU near misses were less likely to be associated with equipment issues (23 % vs. 48 %, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: A limited number of causal mechanisms explained the majority of ICU near misses, providing targets for quality improvement. Errors associated with airway management in the ICU may be underappreciated. Specialist consultants can identify systems weaknesses not identified by critical care providers, and should be engaged in the ICU patient safety movement.


Subject(s)
Anesthesia/statistics & numerical data , Anesthesiology/statistics & numerical data , Intensive Care Units/statistics & numerical data , Near Miss, Healthcare/statistics & numerical data , Airway Management/standards , Anesthesia/standards , Anesthesiology/standards , Humans , Intensive Care Units/standards , Medical Errors/prevention & control , Retrospective Studies
5.
Annu Rev Public Health ; 27: 517-36, 2006.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-16533128

ABSTRACT

Public reporting of provider performance is becoming increasingly commonplace. In this chapter, we first review studies of prior public reports (or report cards) that show real but small impact on provider attempts to improve quality, on consumers' impressions of providers, and even on consumer selection of providers. Among other factors, two potential explanations for the low level of impact are that, in most early reports, the large majority of providers have been labeled "average" and consumers may have had difficulty understanding the statistical assessments. In response, some current report card producers are using or considering a variety of methods to increase the number of distinctions among providers and the ease of comprehension of the labels used. Therefore, we also consider the advantages and disadvantages of several novel approaches to analyzing and reporting provider performance.


Subject(s)
Delivery of Health Care/classification , Information Dissemination/methods , Patient Satisfaction , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Data Interpretation, Statistical , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Humans , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...