Too loud to hear myself think: deleterious effects of noise in the operating room.

Noise is part of daily life in the operating room, and too often is viewed as a necessary evil. However, much of the noise in operating rooms (ORs) is unnecessary, such as extraneous conversations and music, and could be reduced. At the least, noise is known to increase staff stress and to hamper effective communication; at the worst, it adversely affects patient outcomes. Every member of the OR team should be cognisant of this and work to reduce unnecessary noise.

The Cognitive Basis for Human Error and the Best Practices to Reduce Error.

A great deal of knowledge exists about how to make health care safer than it is currently. The tools exist but all too often, they are not implemented. All anesthesia providers need to understand what safety best practices are and continue to advocate for them in their workplaces.

Does standardisation improve post-operative anaesthesia handoffs? Meta-analyses on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes.

Anaesthesia handoffs are associated with negative outcomes (e.g. inappropriate treatments, post-operative complications, and in-hospital mortality). To minimise these adverse outcomes, federal bodies (e.g. Joint Commission) have mandated handoff standardisation. Due to the proliferation of handoff interventions and research, there is a need to meta-analyze anaesthesia handoffs. Therefore, we performed meta-analyses on the provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes related to post-operative anaesthesia handoff protocols. We meta-analysed 41 articles with post-operative anaesthesia handoffs that implemented a standardised handoff protocol. Compared to no standardisation, a standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoff changed provider outcomes with an OR of 4.03 (95% CI 3.20-5.08), patient outcomes with an OR of 1.49 (95% CI 1.32-1.69), organisational outcomes with an OR of 4.25 (95% CI 2.51-7.19), handoff outcomes with an OR of 8.52 (95% CI 7.05-10.31). Our meta-analyses demonstrate that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs altered patient, provider, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Practitioner Summary: We conducted meta-analyses to assess the effects of post-operative anaesthesia handoff standardisation on provider, patient, organisational, and handoff outcomes. Our findings suggest that standardised post-operative anaesthesia handoffs changed all listed outcomes in a positive direction. We discuss the implications of these findings as well as notable limitations in this literature base.

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet: defining patient safety-related terminology.

The definitions of terms related to iatrogenic harm and the potential for iatrogenic harm (e.g. error, medication error, near miss) in the anaesthesia literature are imprecise and variable, resulting in wide discrepancy in conclusions about their rates and potential solutions. Clarification of these terms is both critical and difficult: a concerted effort to achieve expert consensus is warranted.

Implementation and 1-year follow-up of the cardiovascular ICU standardised handover.

BACKGROUND: Miscommunication during clinical handover can lead to partial information transfer and healthcare provider dissatisfaction. We hypothesised that a quality improvement project to standardise the cardiovascular intensive care unit (CVICU) handover could improve healthcare provider satisfaction and reduce information omission. METHODS: After institutional review board approval, the operating room (OR) to CVICU handover was audited prior, post and 1 year after standardisation implementation. The medical information transferred, healthcare provider participation and satisfaction, and patient outcome data were collected. Additionally, surveys were sent to the OR and CVICU staff by email. RESULTS: There were 68 handover processes observed. The odds of greater satisfaction with handover for providers were 18 times higher with the process post implementation (p<0.0001) and 26 times higher 1 year after implementation (p<0.0001). There was statistically significant difference between intensive care unit resident presence (45% vs 76% vs 91%, p=0.004), surgical faculty presence (10% vs 36% vs 45%, p=0.034) and surgical fellow presence (15% vs 64% vs 62%, p=0.001) between the three time periods. More information related to the surgeon (5% vs 52% vs 27%, p=0.002), the medical history (65% vs 96% vs 91%, p=0.014) and the cardiopulmonary bypass (47% vs 88% vs 76%, p=0.017) was conveyed. The duration of mechanical ventilation was shorter after implementation (2.2±2.6 days vs 1.2±1.9 days vs 0.5±1.2 days, p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: One year after the OR to CVICU standardised handover implementation, the healthcare provider satisfaction remained increased, more team members participated and the information transfer increased. Although some clinical outcomes improved, further studies are recommended to prove causality.

Alvimopan as part of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol following radical cystectomy is associated with decreased hospital stay.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effect of alvimopan and the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol on length of hospital stay in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. METHODS: Our retrospective study involved 296 consecutive patients undergoing radical cystectomy for bladder cancer at our institution from 2010 through 2018. Patients were grouped according to three stages of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol implementation: (i) pre-Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (group A; n = 146); (ii) pre-alvimopan Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (group B; n = 102); and (iii) Enhanced Recovery After Surgery plus alvimopan (group C; n = 48). The primary outcome was the length of hospital stay. Secondary outcomes were time to first bowel movement, time to tolerate a regular diet, the incidence of postoperative ileus, postoperative complications and 30-day readmission rate. RESULTS: Group C showed a significantly shorter median length of hospital stay (7 days, P = 0.003), shorter gastrointestinal recovery time (4 days, P = 0.018) and a lower rate of postoperative ileus (14.6%, P = 0.005). The reduction in length of hospital stay, gastrointestinal recovery time and a lower rate of postoperative ileus was significant after controlling for other confounders on multivariable regression analysis. With the open approach, group C showed a significantly shorter length of hospital stay and gastrointestinal recovery time (P = 0.005, P = 0.001, respectively); however, in robotic cohorts, no significant differences were observed. There was no difference among groups in the 30-day readmission rate or postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS: Patients undergoing radical cystectomy and managed by an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol experience a significantly shorter length of hospital stay when receiving alvimopan as part of the protocol. Patients seem to derive the optimum benefits of alvimopan when it is used with an open approach; however, these benefits become less obvious with the robotic approach.

A guide for pre-procedural imaging for transcatheter aortic valve replacement patients.

Safe and accurate pre-procedural assessment of cardiovascular anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology prior to TAVR procedures can mean the difference between success and catastrophic failure. It is imperative that clinical care team members share a basic understanding of the preprocedural imaging technologies available for optimizing the care of TAVR patients. Herein, we review current imaging technology for assessing the anatomy, physiology, and pathophysiology of the aortic valvular complex, ventricular function, and peripheral vasculature, including echocardiography, cardiac catheterization, cardiac computed tomography, and cardiac magnetic resonance prior to a TAVR procedure. The authorship includes cardiac-trained anesthesiologists, anesthesiologists with expertise in pre-procedural cardiac assessment and optimization, and interventional cardiologists with expertise in cardiovascular imaging prior to TAVRs. Improving the understanding of all team members will undoubtedly translate into safer, more coordinated patient care.

Global PRoMiSe (Perioperative Recommendations for Medication Safety): protocol for a mixed-methods study.

INTRODUCTION: Medication errors (MEs), which occur commonly in the perioperative period, have the potential to cause patient harm or death. Many published recommendations exist for preventing perioperative MEs; however, many of these recommendations conflict and are often not applicable to middle-income and low-income countries. The goal of this study is to develop and disseminate consensus-based recommendations for perioperative medication safety that are tailored to country income level. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The primary site of this mixed-methods study is Massachusetts General Hospital/Harvard Medical School. Participants include a minimum of 108 international medication safety experts, 27 from each of the World Bank's four country income groups (high, upper-middle, lower-middle and low-income). Using the Delphi method, participants will rate the appropriateness of candidate medication safety recommendations by completing online surveys using RedCAP. We will use Condorcet ranking methods to prioritise the final recommendations for each country income group. We will execute a comprehensive dissemination strategy for the recommendations across each country income group. Finally, we will conduct semistructured interviews with our participants to evaluate the initial adoption and implementation of the recommendations in each country income group. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Human Research Committee/Institutional Review Board at Partners Healthcare (2019P003567). Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at local and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04240301.

Identifying Variability in Mental Models Within and Between Disciplines Caring for the Cardiac Surgical Patient.

BACKGROUND: The cardiac operating room is a complex environment requiring efficient and effective communication between multiple disciplines. The objectives of this study were to identify and rank critical time points during the perioperative care of cardiac surgical patients, and to assess variability in responses, as a correlate of a shared mental model, regarding the importance of these time points between and within disciplines. METHODS: Using Delphi technique methodology, panelists from 3 institutions were tasked with developing a list of critical time points, which were subsequently assigned to pause point (PP) categories. Panelists then rated these PPs on a 100-point visual analog scale. Descriptive statistics were expressed as percentages, medians, and interquartile ranges (IQRs). We defined low response variability between panelists as an IQR ≤ 20, moderate response variability as an IQR > 20 and ≤ 40, and high response variability as an IQR > 40. RESULTS: Panelists identified a total of 12 PPs. The PPs identified by the highest number of panelists were (1) before surgical incision, (2) before aortic cannulation, (3) before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) initiation, (4) before CPB separation, and (5) at time of transfer of care from operating room (OR) to intensive care unit (ICU) staff. There was low variability among panelists' ratings of the PP "before surgical incision," moderate response variability for the PPs "before separation from CPB," "before transfer from OR table to bed," and "at time of transfer of care from OR to ICU staff," and high response variability for the remaining 8 PPs. In addition, the perceived importance of each of these PPs varies between disciplines and between institutions. CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac surgical providers recognize distinct critical time points during cardiac surgery. However, there is a high degree of variability within and between disciplines as to the importance of these times, suggesting an absence of a shared mental model among disciplines caring for cardiac surgical patients during the perioperative period. A lack of a shared mental model could be one of the factors contributing to preventable errors in cardiac operating rooms.

Safety Culture in Cardiac Surgical Teams: Data From Five Programs and National Surgical Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about safety culture in the area of cardiac surgery as compared with other types of surgery. The unique features of cardiac surgical teams may result in different perceptions of patient safety and patient safety culture. METHODS: We measured and described safety culture in five cardiovascular surgical centers using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, and compared the data with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 2010 comparative database in surgery and anesthesiology (all types). We reported mean scores, standard deviations, and percent positive responses for the two single-item measures and 12 patient safety climate dimensions in the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. RESULTS: In the five cardiac surgical programs, the dimension of teamwork within hospital units had the highest positive score (74% positive responses), and the dimension of nonpunitive response to error had the lowest score (38% positive responses). Surgeons and support staff perceived better safety climate than nurses, perfusionists, and anesthesia practitioners. The cardiac surgery cohort reported more positive safety climate than the AHRQ all-type surgery cohort in four dimensions but lower frequency of reporting mistakes. The cardiac anesthesiology cohort scored lower on two dimensions compared with the AHRQ all-type anesthesiology cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies patient safety areas for improvement in cardiac surgical teams in comparison with all-type surgical teams. We also found that different professional disciplines in cardiac surgical teams perceive patient safety differently.

Locating Errors Through Networked Surveillance: A Multimethod Approach to Peer Assessment, Hazard Identification, and Prioritization of Patient Safety Efforts in Cardiac Surgery.

OBJECTIVES: The objectives were to develop a scientifically sound and feasible peer-to-peer assessment model that allows health-care organizations to evaluate patient safety in cardiovascular operating rooms and to establish safety priorities for improvement. METHODS: The locating errors through networked surveillance study was conducted to identify hazards in cardiac surgical care. A multidisciplinary team, composed of organizational sociology, organizational psychology, applied social psychology, clinical medicine, human factors engineering, and health services researchers, conducted the study. We used a transdisciplinary approach, which integrated the theories, concepts, and methods from each discipline, to develop comprehensive research methods. Multiple data collection was involved: focused literature review of cardiac surgery-related adverse events, retrospective analysis of cardiovascular events from a national database in the United Kingdom, and prospective peer assessment at 5 sites, involving survey assessments, structured interviews, direct observations, and contextual inquiries. A nominal group methodology, where one single group acts to problem solve and make decisions was used to review the data and develop a list of the top priority hazards. RESULTS: The top 6 priority hazard themes were as follows: safety culture, teamwork and communication, infection prevention, transitions of care, failure to adhere to practices or policies, and operating room layout and equipment. CONCLUSIONS: We integrated the theories and methods of a diverse group of researchers to identify a broad range of hazards and good clinical practices within the cardiovascular surgical operating room. Our findings were the basis for a plan to prioritize improvements in cardiac surgical care. These study methods allowed for the comprehensive assessment of a high-risk clinical setting that may translate to other clinical settings.

FOCUS: the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists' initiative to improve quality and safety in the cardiovascular operating room.

The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) introduced the FOCUS initiative (Flawless Operative Cardiovascular Unified Systems) in 2005 in response to the need for a rigorous scientific approach to improve quality and safety in the cardiovascular operating room (CVOR). The goal of the project, which is supported by the SCA Foundation, is to identify hazards and develop evidence-based protocols to improve cardiac surgery safety. A hazard is anything that has the potential to cause a preventable adverse event. Specifically, the strategic plan of FOCUS includes 3 goals: (1) identifying hazards in the CVOR, (2) prioritizing hazards and developing risk-reduction interventions, and (3) disseminating these interventions. Collectively, the FOCUS initiative, through the work of several groups composed of members from different disciplines such as clinical medicine, human factors engineering, industrial psychology, and organizational sociology, has identified and documented significant hazards occurring daily in our CVORs. Some examples of frequent occurrences that contribute to reduce the safety and quality of care provided to cardiac surgery patients include deficiencies in teamwork, poor OR design, incompatible technologies, and failure to adhere to best practices. Several projects are currently under way that are aimed at better understanding these hazards and developing interventions to mitigate them. The SCA, through the FOCUS initiative, has begun this journey of science-driven improvement in quality and safety. There is a long and arduous road ahead, but one we need to continue to travel.

Comparison of intensive care unit medication errors reported to the United States' MedMarx and the United Kingdom's National Reporting and Learning System: a cross-sectional study.

The objective was to compare the characteristics of medication errors reported to 2 national error reporting systems by conducting a cross-sectional analysis of errors reported from adult intensive care units to the UK National Reporting and Learning System and the US MedMarx system. Outcome measures were error types, severity of patient harm, stage of medication process, and involved medications. The authors analyzed 2837 UK error reports and 56 368 US reports. Differences were observed between UK and US errors for wrong dose (44% vs 29%), omitted dose (8.6% vs 27%), and stage of medication process (prescribing: 14% vs 49%; administration: 71% vs 42%). Moderate/severe harm or death was reported in 4.9% of UK versus 3.4% of US errors. Gentamicin was cited in 7.4% of the UK versus 0.7% of the US reports (odds ratio = 9.25). There were differences in the types of errors reported and the medications most often involved. These differences warrant further examination.