Early postoperative emergencies requiring an intensive care team intervention. The role of ASA physical status and after-hours surgery.

To examine the risk factors of early postoperative emergencies that required an intensive care team intervention, a matched nested case-control study (34 cases and 126 controls) was conducted. Over a 17-month period, the incidence of early postoperative emergencies occurring within 48 h of surgery was 0.21% (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.14%-0.30%). The intensive care team treated two cardiac arrests and three respiratory arrests. The major physiological changes which led to ward staff summoning an intensive care team were hypotension (13 cases) and a decreased level of consciousness (nine cases). Significant associations with early postoperative emergencies were high ASA (> or = IV) physical status grades (odds ratio: 4.51, 95% CI: 1.24-16.40) and surgery performed outside normal working hours (odds ratio: 4.40, 95% CI: 1.41-13.69). High-risk patients may benefit from a visit by a postoperative care team during the early postoperative period but this requires further evaluation.

Risk of unanticipated intraoperative events in patients assessed at a preanaesthetic clinic.

PURPOSE: To determine the risk of unanticipated intraoperative events (UIE) in patients assessed at a preanaesthetic clinic compared with those not assessed at the clinic. METHODS: Preoperative and intraoperative data were collected on 6130 elective surgical patients by procedural anaesthetists over a 12-month-period at an Australian tertiary referral hospital. The procedural anaesthetists rated the level of preparation and identified predefined unanticipated intraoperative events. A logistic regression model was used to identify significant risk factors of UIE and was further validated on another sample of 482 patients (one month) by a goodness-of-fit test. RESULTS: Of the 6130 elective surgical patients, 2000 (33%) had been assessed at the preanaesthetic clinic. There was a greater proportion of ASA II to IV patients seen at the clinic than patients not assessed at the clinic (chi 2(3) = 689.92, P < 0.001). Nonclinic patients were more likely to be inadequately prepared than clinic patients (RRunadjusted = 1.61, 95% CI: 1.25 to 2.04, P < 0.001). The overall incidence of intraoperative events was 4.14% (95% CI: 3.64% to 4.64%). Despite adjusting for the preparation level, type of anaesthesia, admission category, ASA physical status and duration of anaesthesia, clinic patients were 1.94 (95% CI: 1.42 to 2.64) times more likely to experience an UIE than nonclinic patients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although clinic patients were more often optimally prepared, their adjusted risk of UIE was higher than nonclinic patients. The procedural anaesthetist needs to be vigilant with these high risk patients, even if they have been assessed at a preanaesthetic clinic.

Measuring anaesthetic outcomes.

We have identified some of the most frequently measured anaesthetic outcomes and their independent risk factors, and discussed the limitations and advantages in using various risk adjustment strategies. Many studies suggest that preoperative assessments may contribute to preventing the occurrence of anaesthetic-related morbidity and mortality, and to high levels of patient satisfaction. The use of health status measurements as a preoperative screening tool in assessing anaesthetic risk offers a potential area for future work. Research into measuring anaesthetic outcomes in a reliable and valid manner will be an important tool in improving standards of anaesthetic practice and in delivering quality anaesthesia to our patients.

Interhospital transfers: decision-making in critical care areas.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the training of clinical staff in the use of interhospital transfer guidelines and to examine the underlying decision-making behavior in organizing patient transfers between hospitals. DESIGN: Prospective assessment of clinical scenarios, given before (time 1), immediately after (time 2), and 3 months after (time 3) a program informing clinical staff about the use of interhospital transfer guidelines. SETTING: Three emergency departments and one intensive care unit at three hospitals and a medical retrieval service in Sydney, Australia. SUBJECTS: Physicians, nurses, and a paramedic working in critical care areas and at a medical retrieval service. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A questionnaire containing clinical scenarios was administered to clinical staff. There was a significant difference in mean scores for selecting the appropriate escort levels across time (F2,78 = 24.2; p < .01) and for participant's experience with interhospital transfer (F2,39 = 4.63; p = .02). Significant improvement in mean scores occurred between time 1 (7.55 +/- 1.84 and time 2 (9.48 +/- 1.47) (t41 = -6.21; p < .01). The improvement in selecting appropriate escorts was maintained at time 3 (mean score 9.86 +/- 2.01). The error rate for inappropriate assignment of low levels of escorts decreased from 35% (time 1) to 10% (time 2) and 14% (time 3). Using conjoint analysis, there were large variations in the decision-making behaviour between each time period. The relative importance of each factor in influencing the decision to organize an escort at time 3 were as follows: treatment (43%); physiology (29%); patient age (24%); and diagnosis (4%). The decision-making model observed at time 3 had a high predictive value (87%) as compared with the model at time 1 (48%). CONCLUSION: Clinical staff can make informed and appropriate decisions by using standardized guidelines when organizing interhospital transfers.

Referral of surgical patients to an anaesthetic clinic: a decision-making analysis.

Effective utilization of an anaesthetic clinic depends on appropriate referral of high-risk surgical patients. The decision-making behaviour of anaesthetists and nurses was examined to identify factors that influence the referral of patients to an outpatient anaesthetic clinic. Eleven consultant anaesthetists, seven anaesthetic trainees and sixteen nurses working in anaesthetic areas estimated the likelihood that they would refer patients for each of the 30 scenarios presented. The relative importance of each factor influencing the decision to refer as determined by the 34 participants were: type of procedure (22%), co-morbidities (18%), fitness (13%), history of anaesthetic problems (12%), medications (11%), age (10%), obesity (8%) and anxiety (6%). Indicative risk factors identified were aged 65 years or over, unable to climb more than two flights of stairs, presence of significant medical problems, gross obesity, history of anaesthetic problems, taking regular medications, scheduled for major surgery and expressed anxiety about the anaesthetic. There were large variations in the decision-making behaviour among health professional groups.

Fault in a Selectatec manifold resulting in awareness.

The Selectatec Vaporising System is a quick change system consisting of anaesthetic vaporisers of the Tec 3 and Tec 4 models and the compatibility manifold block on which these are seated on the anaesthetic machine backbar. There have been reports of difficulties with the seating and locking of the vaporisers which can cause a leak and failure of vapour delivery. The Faculty of Anaesthetists, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (now Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists) issued a hazard alert in March 1991 drawing attention to this potential fault. We present two cases of awareness associated with failure of internal seals within a Selectatec compatibility manifold block which did not have a detectable leak.

Resuscitation skills of first year postgraduate doctors.

The resuscitation skills of twenty seven doctors in their preregistration year were examined using a series of mock clinical scenarios and theoretical testing. All failed to reach basic life support standards of the American Heart Association and major deficiencies were revealed in the provision of ventilatory support, pharmacological therapy and the use of resuscitation equipment. Specific educational deficiencies that were apparent included: (1) early initial training without subsequent revision or testing; (2) the inadequate gaining of practical skills and equipment familiarity during the trainee intern and first year house officer years; and (3) an ill defined curriculum of emergency care that was fragmented between specialties and between lay and medical teachers.