An Evaluation of the Performance of Five Burnout Screening Tools: A Multicentre Study in Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, and Ancillary Staff.

Burnout is an important occupational hazard and early detection is paramount in preventing negative sequelae in physicians, patients, and healthcare systems. Several screening tools have been developed to replace lengthy diagnostic tools for large-scale screening, however, comprehensive head-to-head evaluation for performance and accuracy are lacking. The primary objective of this study was to compare the diagnostic performance of five burnout screening tools, including a novel rapid burnout screening tool (RBST). This was a cross-sectional study involving 493 hospital staff (anaesthesiology and intensive care doctors, nurses, and ancillary staff) at the COVID-19 frontline across four hospitals in Singapore between December 2020 and April 2021. The Maslach Burnout Inventory-Human Services Survey (MBI-HSS) was used as the reference standard. Five burnout screening tools, the single-item MBI measure of burnout (SI-MBI), dual-item MBI (DI-MBI), abbreviated MBI (aMBI), Single Item Burnout Question (SIBOQ), and the RBST, were administered via a 36-item online survey. Tools were administered simultaneously and responses were anonymised. Burnout prevalence was 19.9%. The RBST and the SI-MBI had the two highest accuracies (87.8% and 81.9% respectively) and AUROC scores (0.86, 95% CI: 0.83-0.89 and 0.86, 95% CI: 0.82-0.89 respectively). However, the accuracy of the RBST was significantly higher than the SI-MBI (p < 0.0001), and it had the highest positive likelihood ratio (+LR = 7.59, 95% CI 5.65-10.21). Brief screening tools detect burnout albeit with a wide range of accuracy. This can strain support services and resources. The RBST is a free screening tool that can detect burnout with a high degree of accuracy.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for surgical patients in an Asian hospital.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is increasingly recognized as a significant postoperative complication in Asian hospitals. Recommendations have been published for VTE prophylaxis. We conducted a prospective survey of the risk profile and measures used for VTE prophylaxis in elective surgical patients in our hospital. METHODS: All patients who underwent elective general or orthopaedic surgery over a 4-week period were included. Information collected included demographic data, presence of risk factors, type and duration of surgery, perioperative use of VTE prophylaxis and any diagnosis of deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary embolism during the current admission as well as in any readmissions in the 6 weeks after discharge. The patients were classified based on their age, risk factors and type of surgery into low, moderate, high or highest risk and the prophylactic measures they received compared with published recommendations. RESULTS: Two hundred and twenty-six patients underwent 227 elective surgeries over the 4-week period. There were 7 low, 16 moderate, 45 high and 55 highest risk patients. One hundred and three patients could not be classified. Postoperative prophylactic measures were omitted in 93.8%, 81.8% and 31.5% of patients in moderate, high and highest risk groups, respectively. One patient developed clinical deep vein thrombosis preoperatively and one postoperatively. There were no cases of pulmonary embolism. CONCLUSIONS: VTE prophylaxis is underutilized in our survey. Further studies are required to identify the reasons for omission and to develop hospital specific protocols to increase appropriate use of prophylaxis.

The effect of mixing lidocaine with propofol on the dose of propofol required for induction of anesthesia.

UNLABELLED: Lidocaine is used to reduce pain associated with propofol injection, either mixed with propofol or preceding it as a separate injection. The addition of lidocaine to propofol causes destabilization of the emulsion and reduces anesthetic potency in rats and humans. We conducted a randomized double-blinded study on 67 patients to assess the effect of mixing lidocaine with propofol on the dose of propofol required for the induction of anesthesia. Patients in Group S (n = 32) received IV lidocaine 0.2 mg/kg followed by an infusion of propofol whereas those in Group M (n = 35) received IV normal saline (placebo) followed by an infusion of a freshly prepared mixture of propofol 1%/lidocaine 1% in 10:1 volume ratio. The infusion was stopped when the subjects lost consciousness, as detected by the syringe-drop method. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in the mean (95% confidence interval) doses of propofol required for loss of consciousness: 2.0 (1.8-2.2) mg/kg for Group S versus 1.9 (1.7-2.0) mg/kg for Group M (P = 0.206). Mixing 20 mg of lidocaine with 200 mg of propofol is unlikely to affect the dose of propofol required for the induction of anesthesia. IMPLICATIONS: Adding lidocaine to propofol destabilizes the propofol emulsion. A randomized double-blinded trial found no statistically significant difference in the doses of propofol required for the induction of anesthesia whether administered as a freshly prepared propofol 1%/lidocaine 1% 10:1 mixture or as a separate injection after a dose of lidocaine.