A prospective, observational study of the effects of implementation strategy on compliance with a surgical safety checklist.

BACKGROUND: The reported benefits of using the WHO Surgical Safety Checklist (SSC) are likely to depend on compliance with its correct use. Compliance with SSC administration in centres that have introduced the checklist under a research protocol may differ from centres where the SSC is introduced independently. OBJECTIVE: To compare compliance with SSC administration at an original WHO pilot study centre (Hospital 1) with that at a similar neighbouring hospital (Hospital 2) that independently integrated the SSC with pre-existing practice. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study. One hundred operations were observed at each hospital. We recorded: compliance with administration of SSC domains (Sign In, Time Out and Sign Out) and individual domain items; timing of domain administration; and operating room team engagement during administration. RESULTS: Domain compliance at Hospital 1 and Hospital 2, respectively, was: 96% and 31% (p<0.0005) for Sign In; 99% and 48% (p<0.0005) for Time Out and 22% and 9% (p=0.008) for Sign Out. Engagement of two or more teams during Sign In and Time Out occurred more frequently at Hospital 2 than at Hospital 1. DISCUSSION: Compliance with administration of SSC domains was lower at Hospital 2 which introduced the SSC outside the context of a strict study protocol. This finding mandates caution in extrapolation of benefits identified in SSC studies to non-study hospitals. Staff engagement was better at Hospital 2 where checklist administration leadership is strategically shared among anaesthetic, surgical and nursing team members as compared with exclusive nursing leadership at Hospital 1. STUDY REGISTRY NUMBER: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: Ref: ACTRN12612000135819, http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?ID=362007.

Systemic levels of local anaesthetic after intra-peritoneal application--a systematic review.

There is a lack of cohesive reports on the systemic levels of local anaesthetic after intraperitoneal application. A comprehensive systematic review with no language restriction was conducted. Eighteen suitable articles were identified. Data were compiled and presented according to local anaesthetic agent. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic has been studied in many different procedures, including open and laparoscopic surgery. A total of 415 patients were included for analysis. There were no cases of clinical toxicity. There were 11 (2.7%) cases with a systemic level above or close to a safe threshold (as determined by the report authors) in three trials utilising intraperitoneal local anaesthetic after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Intraperitoneal lignocaine doses varied from 100 to 1000 mg, mean Cmax ranged from 1.01 to 4.32 microg/ml and mean Tmax ranged from 15 to 40 minutes. Intraperitoneal bupivacaine doses varied from 50 to 150 mg (weight based doses also reported), mean Cmax ranged from 0.29 to 1.14 microg/ml and mean Tmax ranged from 15 to 60 minutes. Intraperitoneal ropivacaine doses varied from 100 to 300 mg, mean Cmax ranged from 0.66 to 3.76 microg/ml and mean Tmax ranged from 15 to 35 minutes. The addition of adrenaline to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic almost halves systemic levels and prolongs Tmax. Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic results in detectable systemic levels in the perioperative setting. Despite a lack of clinical toxicity, careful attention to dose is still required to prevent potential systemic toxic levels. Clinicians should also consider the addition of adrenaline to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic solutions to further add to the systemic safety profile.

A survey of the use of unapproved medicines in anaesthesia practice in New Zealand.

The Medicines Act (1981) and its amendments regulate the manufacture, sale and supply of medicines, medical devices and related products in New Zealand. Medications are approved for supply under the provisions of this Act. Supply and administration of unapproved medications is permitted. When this occurs, the supplier must report this to the Director-General of Health. Additionally, the patient must be informed of the unapproved status of the drug and be advised of the forwarding of information related to their health care to a third party. For apparently commercial reasons, approval has not been sought for a number of formulations of medications commonly used in anaesthesia practice. There has been no published literature of the impact of this legislation on the practice of anaesthesia in New Zealand. A survey was undertaken to determine how commonly anaesthetists administer unapproved drugs, whether the requirements for informed consent were met and any perceived impact the status of these medications has on patient care. The survey findings indicated that the majority of New Zealand anaesthetists practise 'outside the law' with respect to unapproved medicines. Seventy-eight percent do not inform patients about the potential use of unapproved medications during their anaesthetic, despite 65% administering these medications to patients "every few weeks" or even more often.

Excruciating perineal pain after intravenous dexamethasone.

We describe two cases of unexpected perineal pain immediately after intravenous injection of fentanyl and dexamethasone (100 microg and 8 mg respectively) during induction of general anaesthesia. In both cases the pain was immediate (onset within 30 seconds), severe, localized to the genital region and of shooting and burning character No other clinical signs or symptoms were observed in either case and both patients made an uneventful recovery without neurological sequelae. We review the existing literature on perineal pain as an adverse effect of intravenous corticosteroid esters and recommend their administration either in diluted form or after induction of general anaesthesia.