Critique of "A Study of the Deaths Associated with Anesthesia and Surgery"

Julia Gordon Arrowood (1900 - 1984): A Brilliant Anesthesiologist and a Woman of Many Firsts in Medicine

After a brief "golden age" in the late 1800s, the patriarchal establishment fought back and women faced increasing restrictions in practicing medicine. In 1900, 18.2% of all physicians in the city of Boston were women, but this number decreased to 8.7% by 1930. The relatively young field of anesthesiology was one of the more welcoming specialties for women during this time. History has been unkind to these early female trailblazers who have often been overlooked in favor of the men in their fields. Julia Gordon Arrowood (1900-1984) was a forerunner for women in medicine and a prominent anesthesiologist in Boston from the 1930s until the 1950s. Her work included not only clinical medicine, but also research and teaching. She attended Boston University School of Medicine, graduating as valedictorian in the class of 1933. She interned at Belmont Hospital in Worcester, MA where she decided on a career in anesthesiology. She was accepted as a resident at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) by chief-anesthetist Henry Beecher in 1935, thereby becoming the first woman anesthesiology resident in Massachusetts. She remained at MGH and was named Acting Chief of Anesthesia in 1943. In 1944, she became president of the New England Society of Anesthesiologists, another first for a woman. In 1946, she joined Reginald Smithwick's team as Chief of Anesthesia at Massachusetts Memorial Hospital, Boston, and concurrently held the position of Professor of Anesthesiology at Boston University School of Medicine. Arrowood led many of the earliest studies on spinal anesthesia, muscle relaxants, and spinal headaches. In 1957, she moved to Kentucky and joined the United Mine Workers hospital system where she worked until her retirement in 1970. Women such as Julia Arrowood remain underrepresented in the annals of the history of medicine. Much work is needed to recognize the many contributions made by women physicians and to provide equal opportunities, pay, and status.

Professor Ross Holland: The Special Committee Investigating Deaths Under Anaesthesia (SCIDUA) and his other contributions to anaesthesia

As a young anaesthetic trainee in 1959 Ross Holland persuaded the Minister of Health in NSW, Australia, to establish SCIDUA, which by law required compulsory reporting for all deaths occurring during anaesthesia or up to 24 hours after cessation of the anaesthetic. The committee was multidisciplinary and, most importantly, had statutory privilege so that no discussions or findings were able to be subpoenaed for other legal investigations or case law. Holland was the foundation secretary of SCIDUA and later Chair. Apart from three years in the 1980s when there were political issues with legal privilege, the committee has met monthly and still meets. Holland was a major figure in antipodean anaesthesia, setting up in 1978 the clinical department at Westmead Hospital Sydney, then in 1987 becoming the foundation Professor to the Department of Anaesthesiology at the University of Hong Kong, and in 1990 foundation Professor and Chair, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care at the University of Newcastle, NSW. Holland had strong historical interests and was responsible for founding the Society for the Preservation of Artefacts of Surgery and Medicine (SPASM) and its associated museum. He also served an important term as Dean of the Faculty of Anaesthetists, Royal Australasian College of Surgeons prior to that Faculty becoming independent as the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA). Professor Holland received many accolades for these activities during his life, which are noted. It is fitting to recognise his seminal contributions to patient safety over more than 50 years.

Intermediate acting non-depolarizing neuromuscular blocking agents and risk of postoperative respiratory complications: prospective propensity score matched cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether use of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents during general anesthesia increases the incidence of postoperative respiratory complications.

DESIGN

Prospective, propensity score matched cohort study.

SETTING

General teaching hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, United States, 2006-10.

PARTICIPANTS

18,579 surgical patients who received intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents during surgery were matched by propensity score to 18,579 reference patients who did not receive such agents.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The main outcome measures were oxygen desaturation after extubation (hemoglobin oxygen saturation <90% with a decrease in oxygen saturation after extubation of >3%) and reintubations requiring unplanned admission to an intensive care unit within seven days of surgery. We also evaluated effects on these outcome variables of qualitative monitoring of neuromuscular transmission (train-of-four ratio) and reversal of neuromuscular blockade with neostigmine to prevent residual postoperative neuromuscular blockade.

RESULTS

The use of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents was associated with an increased risk of postoperative desaturation less than 90% after extubation (odds ratio 1.36, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.51) and reintubation requiring unplanned admission to an intensive care unit (1.40, 1.09 to 1.80). Qualitative monitoring of neuromuscular transmission did not decrease this risk and neostigmine reversal increased the risk of postoperative desaturation less than 90% (1.32, 1.20 to 1.46) and reintubation (1.76, 1.38 to 2.26).

CONCLUSION

The use of intermediate acting neuromuscular blocking agents during anesthesia was associated with an increased risk of clinically meaningful respiratory complications. Our data suggest that the strategies used in our trial to prevent residual postoperative neuromuscular blockade should be revisited.

Improving patient safety in anesthesia: a success story?

Anesthesia is necessary for surgery; however, it does not deliver any direct therapeutic benefit. The risks of anesthesia must therefore be as low as possible. Anesthesiology has been identified as a leader in improving patient safety. Anesthetic mortality has decreased, and in healthy patients can be as low as 1:250,000. Trends in anesthetic morbidity have not been as well defined, but it appears that the risk of injury is decreasing. Studies of error during anesthesia and Closed Claims studies have identified sources of risk and methods to reduce the risks associated with anesthesia. These include changes in technology, such as anesthetic delivery systems and monitors, the application of human factors, the use of simulation, and the establishment of reporting systems. A review of the important events in the past 50 years illustrates the many steps that have contributed to the improvements in anesthesia safety.

Patient safety and health policy: a history and review

Policy initiatives on many fronts have converged to improve patient safety. A major tension that characterizes this process is the attempt to achieve a balance between learning and control in complex systems with technical, social, and organizational components. Efforts to improve learning are marked by better information flow, discovery, flexibility in thinking, embracing of failures as learning opportunities, and core incentives to promote voluntary participation of all stakeholders in the process. Efforts to improve accountability are traditionally marked by public disclosure, meeting of certain widely disseminated standards, availability of performance measures, exposure to legal liability, and compliance with mandated directives (statutes, regulations, accreditation requirements). In some sense, these directions are mutually exclusive. Although a more collaborative regulatory-improvement model would be helpful in creating an industrywide safety culture, it is likely that learning and accountability functions will follow separate tracks. An exception would be policy that stimulates organizations to comply with regulation by showing how well and by what methods they are learning and how others can profit from these experiences. Any approach to improving patient safety should, at a minimum, include a nonpunitive in-depth mechanism for reporting incidents, postincident evaluations for identification of system changes to prevent subsequent occurrences, and state-guaranteed legislative protection from discovery for all aspects of information gathered to improve patient safety. Nonpunitive approaches have yielded useful results in other industries [43]. State and federal courts, state licensing boards, and accrediting bodies such as JCAHO all function to maintain accountability and standards; however, the very fear of existing legal liability or its misapplication are the greatest hurdles to pioneering patient-safety efforts. The health care system needs to transform the existing culture of blame and punishment that suppresses information about errors and adverse events into a culture of safety that focuses on openness and information sharing to improve health care and prevent adverse outcomes. Education and leadership will be most important to creating and sustaining a strong safety culture and arguably the most important defense against preventable harms. Safety culture cannot be legislated, just as the old adage states that it is easier to pull rather than push a piece of spaghetti. Given the imbalances and inefficiencies of market forces in health care, perverse incentives that have strengthened resistance to change, and secrecy when it comes to adverse event information, however, it is likely that policy initiatives will continue to play an important role in the transformation of the industry to more highly reliable, safer levels of care.