Protocol for Usability Testing and Validation of the ISO Draft International Standard 19223 for Lung Ventilators.

BACKGROUND: Clinicians, such as respiratory therapists and physicians, are often required to set up pieces of medical equipment that use inconsistent terminology. Current lung ventilator terminology that is used by different manufacturers contributes to the risk of usage errors, and in turn the risk of ventilator-associated lung injuries and other conditions. Human factors and communication issues are often associated with ventilator-related sentinel events, and inconsistent ventilator terminology compounds these issues. This paper describes our proposed protocol, which will be implemented at the University of Waterloo, Canada when this project is externally funded. OBJECTIVE: We propose to determine whether a standardized vocabulary improves the ease of use, safety, and utility as it relates to the usability of medical devices, compared to legacy medical devices from multiple manufacturers, which use different terms. METHODS: We hypothesize that usage errors by clinicians will be lower when standardization is consistently applied by all manufacturers. The proposed study will experimentally examine the impact of standardized nomenclature on performance declines in the use of an unfamiliar ventilator product in clinically relevant scenarios. Participants will be respiratory therapy practitioners and trainees, and we propose studying approximately 60 participants. RESULTS: The work reported here is in the proposal phase. Once the protocol is implemented, we will report the results in a follow-up paper. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed study will help us better understand the effects of standardization on medical device usability. The study will also help identify any terms in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Draft International Standard (DIS) 19223 that may be associated with recurrent errors. Amendments to the standard will be proposed if recurrent errors are identified. This report contributes a protocol that can be used to assess the effect of standardization in any given domain that involves equipment, multiple manufacturers, inconsistent vocabulary, symbology, audio tones, or patterns in interface navigation. Second, the protocol can be used to experimentally evaluate the ISO DIS 19223 for its effectiveness, as researchers around the world may wish to conduct such tests and compare results.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia - Revised Edition 2016.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2016 (the guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. Because the guidelines are subject to revision, updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2016 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the society cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Each anesthesiologist should exercise his or her own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Guidelines to the practice of anesthesia--revised edition 2015.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2015 (the guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. Because the guidelines are subject to revision, updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2015 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the society cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Each anesthesiologist should exercise his or her own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia--Revised Edition 2014.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2014 (the guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. Because the guidelines are subject to revision, updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2014 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the society cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Each anesthesiologist should exercise his or her own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Technical communication: the effect of the double mask on anesthetic waste gas levels during pediatric mask inductions in dental offices.

A significant portion of office-based general anesthesia for pediatric patients is performed in dental offices and involves mask inductions with inhaled drugs. This can lead to significant pollution with waste gases. We assessed occupational exposure to anesthetic drugs during pediatric general anesthesia in dental offices and assessed the effectiveness of the "double mask." Nine freestanding dental offices had measurements of anesthetic waste gas levels taken before and immediately after implementation of a double-mask system. Levels of nitrous oxide decreased from a median of 40.0 parts per million (ppm; interquartile range [IQR] = 23.0-46.0 ppm, n = 9) to 3.0 ppm, (IQR = 2.3-4.7 ppm, n = 9, P = 0.0055) and exceeded 25 ppm in 0% of the 9 offices (upper 95% confidence limit 34%) when using the double mask. Levels of sevoflurane decreased from a median of 4.60 ppm (IQR = 3.10-7.00 ppm, n = 9) to 0 ppm (IQR = 0-0.39 ppm, n = 9, P = 0.0024) and exceeded 2 ppm in 0% of the 9 offices (upper 95% confidence limit 34%) when using the double mask. We demonstrated in our study that the double-mask system, when used with dental "high-volumes" suctions (high-volume evacuators producing approximately 12 m(3)/h) in freestanding dental offices, was sufficient to decrease the exposure to anesthetic waste gas during pediatric mask induction in at least two thirds of offices when compared with the traditional mask.

Guidelines to the practice of anesthesia revised edition 2013.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2013 (the guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. Because the guidelines are subject to revision, updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2013 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the society cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Each anesthesiologist should exercise his or her own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Home noninvasive ventilation: what does the anesthesiologist need to know?

Treatment of chronic respiratory failure with noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is standard pediatric practice, and NIV systems are commonly used in the home setting. Although practice guidelines on the perioperative management of children supported with home NIV systems have yet to be published, increasingly these patients are referred for consultation regarding perioperative management. Just as knowledge of pharmacology underlies the safe prescription of medication, so too knowledge of biomedical design is necessary for the safe prescription of NIV therapy. The medical device design requirements developed by the Organization for International Standardization provide a framework to rationalize the safe prescription of NIV for hospitalized patients supported at home with NIV systems. This review article provides an overview of the indications for home NIV therapy, an overview of the medical devices currently available to deliver it, and a specific discussion of the management conundrums confronting anesthesiologists.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2012.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2012 (the guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. Because the guidelines are subject to revision, updated versions are published annually. Whereas previous versions of the guidelines appeared as special supplements to the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal), this edition of the guidelines is published within the Journal. This allows for improved archiving and online access to complement the printed version--a new offering for CAS members and Journal subscribers. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2012 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the society cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Each anesthesiologist should exercise his or her own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Morbidity in patients with or at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea after ambulatory laparoscopic gastric banding.

Considerable controversy exists about the perioperative management of patients at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in free-standing clinics. Eighty-eight percent of an American Society of Anesthesiologists expert panel felt that upper abdominal laparoscopic surgery could not be performed safely on an outpatient basis. We sought to review the incidence of major adverse events after outpatient laparoscopic adjustable gastric banding (LAGB) in a high risk population for OSA at a free-standing facility. Research Ethics Board approval was obtained and charts were reviewed retrospectively for 2,370 LAGB performed at a free-standing clinic between 2005 and 2009. In this observational cohort study, patients were classified as high risk for OSA if they received continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment for OSA pre-operatively or had a history of at least three STOP-BANG criteria. Follow-up was verified and adverse events reviewed, including death, unanticipated transfer or admission to hospital within 30 days. A total of 746 of the 2,370 patients (31%) met criteria for or were at high risk for OSA (357 received CPAP for OSA and 389 by STOP-BANG criteria). The incidence of transient desaturation to less than 93% was 39.5%. There were no deaths and no cases of respiratory failure or re-intubation. The 30-day mortality was zero and the 30-day anesthesia related morbidity was less than 0.5%. For patients at high risk for OSA after LAGB, the significance of transient oxygen desaturation and the need to develop monitoring and admission standards remain to be determined.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia: Revised edition 2011.

The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2011 (the guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. Because the guidelines are subject to revision, updated versions are published annually. Whereas previous versions of the guidelines appeared as special supplements to the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal), this edition of the guidelines is published within the Journal. This allows for improved archiving and online access to complement the printed version-a new offering for CAS members and Journal subscribers. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2011 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the society cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Each anesthesiologist should exercise his or her own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Quantitative assessment of commercial filter 'aids' for red-green colour defectives.

The claims made for 43 commercial filter 'aids', that they improve the colour discrimination of red-green colour defectives, are assessed for protanomaly and deuteranomaly by changes in the colour spacing of traffic signals (European Standard EN 1836:2005) and of the Farnsworth D15 test. Spectral transmittances of the 'aids' are measured and tristimulus values with and without 'aids' are computed using cone fundamentals and the spectral power distributions of either the D15 chips illuminated by CIE Illuminant C or of traffic signals. Chromaticities (l,s) are presented in cone excitation diagrams for protanomaly and deuteranomaly in terms of the relative excitation of their long (L), medium (M) and short (S) wavelength-sensitive cones. After correcting for non-uniform colour spacing in these diagrams, standard deviations parallel to the l and s axes are computed and enhancement factors E(l) and E(s) are derived as the ratio of 'aided' to 'unaided' standard deviations. Values of E(l) for traffic signals with most 'aids' are <1 and many do not meet the European signal detection standard. A few 'aids' have expansive E(l) factors but with inadequate utility: the largest being 1.2 for traffic signals and 1.3 for the D15 colours. Analyses, replicated for 19 'aids' from one manufacturer using 658 Munsell colours inside the D15 locus, yield E(l) factors within 1% of those found for the 16 D15 colours.

Consensus statement: minimal criteria for reporting the systemic inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass.

The lack of established cause and effect between putative mediators of inflammation and adverse clinical outcomes has been responsible for many failed anti-inflammatory interventions in cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Candidate interventions that impress in preclinical trials by suppressing a given inflammation marker might fail at the clinical trial stage because the marker of interest is not linked causally to an adverse outcome. Alternatively, there exist examples in which pharmaceutical agents or other interventions improve clinical outcomes but for which we are uncertain of any antiinflammatory mechanism. The Outcomes consensus panel made 3 recommendations in 2009 for the conduct of clinical trials focused on the systemic inflammatory response. This panel was tasked with updating, as well as simplifying, a previous consensus statement. The present recommendations for investigators are the following: (1) Measure at least 1 inflammation marker, defined in broad terms; (2) measure at least 1clinical end point, drawn from a list of practical yet clinically meaningful end points suggested by the consensus panel; and(3) report a core set of CPB and perfusion criteria that maybe linked to outcomes. Our collective belief is that adhering to these simple consensus recommendations will help define the influence of CPB practice on the systemic inflammatory response, advance our understanding of causal inflammatory mechanisms, and standardize the reporting of research findings in the peer-reviewed literature.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2010.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2010 (the guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. Because the guidelines are subject to revision, updated versions are published annually. Whereas previous versions of the guidelines appeared as special supplements to the Canadian Journal of Anesthesia (the Journal), this edition of the guidelines is published within the Journal. This allows for improved archiving and online access to complement the printed version-a new offering for CAS members and Journal subscribers. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2010 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the society cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Each anesthesiologist should exercise his or her own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Brief review: perioperative management of the patient with chronic non-cancer pain.

PURPOSE: Both opioid and non-opioid medications are being utilized increasingly in the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain, and the number of surgical patients receiving large regular doses of opioids is ever-expanding. The perioperative pain control of these patients is often challenging, and is broadening the role of the anesthesiologist as 'perioperative physician'. These patients need to be identified before surgery to plan optimal pain control postoperatively. The purpose of this review is to provide an update on the important considerations in managing the chronic non-cancer pain patient receiving high dose opioids and other adjunctive medications/analgesics. SOURCE: English language articles published between June 1980 and May 2006 were identified by a computerized Medline search using keywords (1/2)chronic pain(1/2), (1/2)opioid dependent(1/2) and (1/2)perioperative(1/2). This same search strategy was repeated and updated using both Medline and Embase. All relevant publications were retrieved and their bibliographies were scanned for additional sources. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Although an increasingly common problem for the acute pain service, there is very little published on this topic. Key points include the concept of opioid equivalency, tolerance, the role of adjunctive medications, and the need for good communication between the surgical team, the acute pain service and the patient who is often anxious about the upcoming procedure due to previous unpleasant experiences with poor pain control in hospital. CONCLUSION: Clinical care of the opioid-dependent patient in the perioperative period can be a daunting task. Education to all staff involved in this area needs to be enhanced to improve outcome and patient satisfaction.

Management of high-risk perioperative systems.

The perioperative system is a complex system that requires people, materials, and processes to come together in a highly ordered and timely manner. However, when working in this high-risk system, even well-organized, knowledgeable, vigilant, and well-intentioned individuals will eventually make errors. All systems need to be evaluated on a continual basis to reduce the risk of errors, make errors more easily recognizable, and provide methods for error mitigation. A simple approach to risk management that may be applied in clinical medicine is discussed.