Protocol for a systematic review of reporting standards of anaesthetic interventions in randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: There is significant variation in how anaesthesia is defined and reported in clinical research. This lack of standardisation complicates the interpretation of published evidence and planning of future clinical trials. This systematic review will assess the reporting of anaesthesia as an intervention in randomised controlled trials (RCT) against the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Non-Pharmacological Treatments (CONSORT-NPT) framework. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Online archives of the top six journals ranked by impact factor for anaesthesia and the top three general medicine and general surgery journals will be systematically hand searched over a 42-month time period to identify RCTs describing the use of anaesthetic interventions for any invasive procedure. All modes of anaesthesia and anaesthesia techniques will be included. All study data, including the type of anaesthetic intervention described, will be extracted in keeping with the CONSORT-NPT checklist. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarise general study details including types/modes of anaesthetic interventions, and reporting standards of the trials. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required. The results will be used to inform a funding application to formally standardise general, local, regional anaesthesia and sedation for use in clinical research. The systematic review will be disseminated via peer-reviewed manuscript and conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019141670.

Management of anaemia and blood transfusion in critical care - implementing national guidelines in ICU.

Anaemia in intensive care is common, with approximately 50% of patients receiving a red cell transfusion. Recognised complications from transfusion include 'transfusion associated lung injury', infection, and organ failure progression. Most cohort studies show a positive relationship between red cell transfusion and adverse outcomes. In 2012, the British Committee for Standards in Haematology issued guidelines for red cell (RBC) transfusion in critical care. They recommend a haemoglobin transfusion trigger of below 70 g/dL unless the patient is bleeding, has acute sepsis, neurological injury, or an acute coronary syndrome. RBC transfusions in a single intensive care unit (ICU) were prospectively assessed for compliance with national guidance. Each transfusion was categorised with a traffic light system: red for inappropriate, green for appropriate, and amber for those that were not clearly appropriate or inappropriate. The quality improvement project began with a clinical effectiveness audit of doctors' knowledge of critical care transfusion thresholds. Two quality improvement interventions were used: 1) a local blood transfusion guideline was produced and posters were placed in the ICU 2) this guidance was attached to the transfusion prescriptions. Data was collected after each intervention. A total of 30 random adult RBC transfusions were analysed between August 2013 and February 2014. Despite good results from the effectiveness audit an assessment of RBC transfusions demonstrated room for improvement. Prior to introduction of the guideline intervention, a total of two transfusions were green, one red and seven amber. Following both interventions there were seven green transfusions and three amber. No transfusions were classed as inappropriate. According to additional trust based ICU transfusion records, there was approximately a 50% reduction (41 to 18 RBC transfusions) in overall blood transfusions following the first intervention in October 2013. Simple interventions to raise awareness such as surveys, posters, and reminders can dramatically improve RBC prescribing in accordance to evidence based guidelines. Making prescribers aware of guidelines can dramatically reduce the total number of overall transfusions and increase transfusion appropriateness.