Epidural anesthesia for cesarean delivery in a morbidly obese parturient with spinal meningioma.

We report our experience with epidural anesthesia for cesarean section in a morbidly obese parturient with progressive paraplegia from a spinal meningioma. Epidural anesthesia may represent a safe anesthetic choice in such clinical situations.

Influences observed on incidence and reporting of medication errors in anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Medication errors are a common occurrence during the conduct of anesthesia (one in 133-450 [corrected] patients). Several factors contribute to medication errors in anesthesia, including experience of the anesthesia provider, severity of comorbidities, and type of procedure. The inexperience of anesthesia providers-in-training also leads to increased error rates. This prospective observational study repeats and extends previous work by Webster et al. and Llewellyn et al. examining the role of comorbidities, type of case, and level of provider experience on the incidence of medication errors. METHODS: After Institutional Review Board review and exemption from informed consent, medication error reporting forms were attached to every anesthetic record during a six-month period. All providers were asked to return the forms for every anesthetic, on a strictly voluntary and anonymous basis, and to record the occurrence of medication errors. If providers indicated that a medication error had occurred, additional details about the event were obtained anonymously. RESULTS: There were 8,777 (83%) responses obtained in a review of 10,574 case forms. A medication error was reported in 35 forms, with an additional 17 forms indicating a medication pre-error or near miss, resulting in 52 (0.49%) errors/pre-errors or a reported incidence of 1:203 anesthetics. Most case types were observed to have a statistically significant increase in reported medication errors. Reported errors by type of anesthesia provider were categorized into anesthesia provider-in-training group and the experienced provider group. The anesthesia provider-in-training group reported a twofold increase in the rate of errors, with the most frequently reported errors being incorrect dose and substitution. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that case type, American Society of Anesthesiologists' classification, and level of provider experience play a role on the rate of medication errors. The results of this study are in agreement with previously reported error rates.

Does anesthesiology residency training result in decreasing intraoperative drug cost from a resident's first to second month's experience in adult cardiac anesthesiology?

BACKGROUND: All physicians bear the responsibility of minimizing cost while providing care that meets or exceeds national quality benchmarks. Intraoperative anesthetic drug costs constitute a small but significant fraction of the total cost in the perioperative period. Previous studies have revealed that anesthesiologists are generally unaware of drug costs. In order to determine if experience and education improve anesthetic drug cost containment, we compared the total anesthetic drug cost per case as residents progressed through their rotations in cardiac anesthesia. METHODS: We considered the total anesthetic drug cost for 202 adult cardiac cases, including coronary artery bypass grafting, mitral valve repair/replacement, and aortic valve repair/replacement. 77 of the cases analyzed were done by residents in their first month of cardiac anesthesia, and 125 were done by residents in their second month of cardiac anesthesia. In the interval between these rotations, residents participate in didactics and other educational activities including a practice management rotation in the CA-3 year where they are exposed to financial topics in healthcare. RESULTS: The average total drug cost per case for residents in their first month was $193.50; SD= $82.00. The average total cost per case for residents in their second month was $223.30; SD=$96.10. With multivariate analysis considering case type, length of procedure and patient age, the resident training level did not impact the cost in a significant way (p=0.062). CONCLUSIONS: In the multivariate analysis considering case type, length of procedure and patient age, more experienced residents did not have a significantly different total drug cost per case. This finding suggests that didactic educational efforts and implicit modeling over time did not reduce drug costs in the operating room during adult cardiac surgery.

Evaluating safety of handoffs between anesthesia care providers.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia care providers frequently exchange care of patients among one another. This daily process of information exchange could be a potential source for adverse events. OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to determine if the current handoff system is ineffective and if more standardized methods available for the exchange of patient information could improve the effectiveness of handoffs. METHODS: We distributed a survey to all anesthesia staff, residents, and nurse anesthetists. The survey queried the following: handoff adequacy, location for best handoff, method for best handoff, and need for inclusion in the electronic medical record. RESULTS: We received 80 completed initial surveys from anesthesia staff, residents, and nurse anesthetists. Of those surveyed, 20% found the existing handoff process inadequate. Most reported both giving and receiving a poor or incomplete handoff within the previous year (84% and 57%, respectively), and 25% related an adverse outcome to a poor handoff. An overwhelming majority, 89%, felt that standardization of this process could improve patient care; 68% reported that ideal handoffs would occur in the record, as well as in person; and 62% believed that handoffs should be incorporated into the electronic medical record. CONCLUSIONS: These data will be used to improve the method of the patient care handoff and have assisted us in devising techniques that can be incorporated into daily practice, advancing the safety of handoffs and decreasing complications. A handoff screen has been included on the electronic anesthesia record, encouraging a more formalized procedure for handoffs, thereby promoting patient safety.

Increase in venous complications associated with etomidate use during a propofol shortage: an example of clinically important adverse effects related to drug substitution.

Etomidate is a widely used intravenous induction agent that is especially useful for patients at risk for hypotension during anesthesia induction. Side effects limiting its use include adrenocortical suppression, acidosis, myoclonus, venous irritation, and phlebitis. The osmolality of etomidate prepared in propylene glycol appears to play a crucial role in causing phlebitis. The increased use of etomidate during the recent propofol shortage correlated with an increase in reported incidences of postoperative phlebitis and thrombophlebitis at Ochsner Clinic Foundation from October 2009 through April 2010. Several methods aim to prevent such occurrences, including pretreatment with lidocaine (and possibly esmolol), lower doses of etomidate, and injection into larger veins. The most compelling evidence suggests that using a lipid formulation of etomidate instead of the traditional propylene glycol preparation may dramatically decrease venous sequelae.