Avoiding midazolam overdose: summary of a safety report from the National Patient Safety Agency

British Society of Gastroenterology guidelines on sedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy

Over 2.5 million gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures are carried out in the United Kingdom (UK) every year. Procedures are carried out with local anaesthetic r with sedation. Sedation is commonly used for gastrointestinal endoscopy, but the type and amount of sedation administered is influenced by the complexity and nature of the procedure and patient factors. The elective and emergency nature of endoscopy procedures and local resources also have a significant impact on the delivery of sedation. In the UK, the vast majority of sedated procedures are carried out using benzodiazepines, with or without opiates, whereas deeper sedation using propofol or general anaesthetic requires the involvement of an anaesthetic team. Patients undergoing gastrointestinal endoscopy need to have good understanding of the options for sedation, including the option for no sedation and alternatives, balancing the intended aims of the procedure and reducing the risk of complications. These guidelines were commissioned by the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Endoscopy Committee with input from major stakeholders, to provide a detailed update, incorporating recent advances in sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy.This guideline covers aspects from pre-assessment of the elective 'well' patient to patients with significant comorbidity requiring emergency procedures. Types of sedation are discussed, procedure and room requirements and the recovery period, providing guidance to enhance safety and minimise complications. These guidelines are intended to inform practising clinicians and all staff involved in the delivery of gastrointestinal endoscopy with an expectation that this guideline will be revised in 5-years' time.

Conscious sedation service for geriatric and special-care dentistry: A health policy brief

Background:

Geriatric and special care dentistry (GSD) involves oral health care for seniors and individuals with disabilities. Due to ethical issues, finances, waiting times, treatment versatility and so on, conscious sedation (CS) may have a place to optimise the delivery of care.

Objectives:

This article identifies considerations for implementing CS in GSD services in Singapore.

Methods:

Taking the form of a health policy brief, this review (a) defines the situation for patients with special-care needs and justified the need for dental CS, (b) makes reference to practices from countries with established dental CS services, (c) states and evaluates available CS techniques for the GSD centre in Singapore and (d) discusses action plans and considerations for implementation.

Results:

Demographic analysis revealed that 23.8% of the GSD patients could have benefitted from CS, or 44.7% of all patients who required behavioural management. The key advantages of CS included enhanced safety, more teeth saved and a reduction in general anaesthesia wait, amongst others. Conventional dental CS techniques included midazolam via various routes, nitrous oxide and ketamine. To establish a CS service, key points of consideration need to be conceptualised first, such as adequate training, perception of patients and providers, operational costs, facilities and developing guidance specific for oral health professionals.

Conclusion:

A local CS service will be beneficial for GSD patients in view of the challenges faced. A group of experts and stakeholders is needed to provide practical consensus.

Patient safety's missing link: using clinical expertise to recognize, respond to and reduce risks at a population level

INTRODUCTION

Although incident reporting systems are widespread in health care as a strategy to reduce harm to patients, the focus has been on reporting incidents rather than responding to them. Systems containing large numbers of incidents are uniquely placed to raise awareness of, and then characterize and respond to infrequent, but significant risks. The aim of this paper is to outline a framework for the surveillance of such risks, their systematic analysis, and for the development and dissemination of population-based preventive and corrective strategies using clinical and human factors expertise.

REQUIREMENTS FOR A POPULATION-LEVEL RESPONSE

The framework outlines four system requirements: to report incidents; to aggregate them; to support and conduct a risk surveillance, review and response process; and to disseminate recommendations. Personnel requirements include a non-hierarchical multidisciplinary team comprising clinicians and subject-matter and human factors experts to provide interpretation and high-level judgement from a range of perspectives. The risk surveillance, review and response process includes searching of large incident and other databases for how and why things have gone wrong, narrative analysis by clinical experts, consultation with the health care sector, and development and pilot testing of corrective strategies. Criteria for deciding which incidents require a population-level response are outlined.

DISCUSSION

The incremental cost of a population-based response function is modest compared with the 'reporting' element. Combining clinical and human factors expertise and a systematic approach underpins the creation of credible risk identification processes and the development of preventive and corrective strategies.

Effects of propranolol on fear of dental extraction: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Undergoing an extraction has been shown to pose a significantly increased risk for the development of chronic apprehension for dental surgical procedures, disproportionate forms of dental anxiety (that is, dental phobia), and symptoms of post-traumatic stress. Evidence suggests that intrusive emotional memories of these events both induce and maintain these forms of anxiety. Addressing these problems effectively requires an intervention that durably reduces both the intrusiveness of key fear-related memories and state anxiety during surgery. Moreover, evidence suggests that propranolol is capable of inhibiting “memory reconsolidation” (that is, it blocks the process of storing a recently retrieved fear memory). Hence, the purpose of this trial is to determine the anxiolytic and fear memory reconsolidation inhibiting effects of the ß-adrenoreceptor antagonist propranolol on patients with high levels of fear in anticipation of a dental extraction.

Methods/Design

This trial is designed as a multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-group, parallel, double-blind trial of 34 participants. Consecutive patients who have been referred by their dentist to the departments of oral and maxillofacial surgery of a University hospital or a secondary referral hospital in the Netherlands for at least two tooth and/or molar removals and with self-reported high to extreme fear in anticipation of a dental extraction will be recruited. The intervention is the administration of two 40 mg propranolol capsules 1 hour prior to a dental extraction, followed by one 40 mg capsule directly postoperatively. Placebo capsules will be used as a comparator. The primary outcome will be dental trait anxiety score reduction from baseline to 4-weeks follow-up. The secondary outcomes will be self-reported anxiety during surgery, physiological parameters (heart rate and blood pressure) during recall of the crucial fear-related memory, self-reported vividness, and emotional charge of the crucial fear-related memory.

Discussion

This randomized trial is the first to test the efficacy of 120 mg of perioperative propranolol versus placebo in reducing short-term (“state”) anxiety during dental extraction, fear memory reconsolidation, and lasting dental (“trait”) anxiety in a clinical population. If the results show a reduction in anxiety, this would offer support for routinely prescribing propranolol in patients who are fearful of undergoing dental extractions.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02268357, registered on 7 October 2014. The Netherlands National Trial Register identifier: NTR5364, registered on 16 August 2015.