Prehospital anaesthesia: a survey of current practice in the UK

Prehospital emergency anaesthesia: an updated survey of UK practice with emphasis on the role of standardisation and checklists

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital emergency anaesthesia (PHEA or 'prehospital rapid sequence intubation') is a high-risk procedure. Standard operating procedures (SOPs) and checklists within healthcare systems have been demonstrated to reduce human error and improve patient safety. We aimed to describe the current practice of PHEA in the UK, determine the use of checklists for PHEA and describe the content, format and layout of any such checklists currently used in the UK.

METHOD

A survey of UK prehospital teams was conducted to establish the incidence and conduct of PHEA practice. Results were grouped into systems delivering a high volume of PHEA per year (>50 PHEAs) and low volume (≤50 PHEAs per annum). Standard and 'crash' (immediate) induction checklists were reviewed for length, content and layout.

RESULTS

59 UK physician-led prehospital services were identified of which 43 (74%) participated. Thirty services (70%) provide PHEA and perform approximately 1629 PHEAs annually. Ten 'high volume' services deliver 84% of PHEAs per year with PHEA being performed on a median of 11% of active missions. The most common indication for PHEA was trauma. 25 of the 30 services (83%) used a PHEA checklist prior to induction of anaesthesia and 24 (80%) had an SOP for the procedure. 19 (76%) of the 'standard' checklists and 5 (50%) of the 'crash' induction checklists used were analysed. On average, standard checklists contained 169 (range: 52-286) words and 41 (range: 28-70) individual checks. The style and language complexity varied significantly between different checklists.

CONCLUSION

PHEA is now performed commonly in the UK. The use of checklists for PHEA is relatively common among prehospital systems delivering this intervention. Care must be taken to limit checklist length and to use simple, unambiguous language in order to maximise the safety of this high-risk intervention.

Aspirations to become an anaesthetist: longitudinal study of historical trends and trajectories of UK-qualified doctors' early career choices and of factors that have influenced their choices

Background

It is important to inform medical educators and workforce planners in Anaesthesia about early career choices for the specialty, factors that influence them and to elucidate how recent choices of men and women doctors relate to the overall historical trends in the specialty’s popularity.

Methods

We analysed longitudinal data on career choice, based on self-completed questionnaires, from national year-of-qualification cohorts of UK-trained doctors from 1974 to 2012 surveyed one, three and 5 years post-qualification. Career destination data 10 years post-qualification were used for qualifiers between 1993 and 2002, to investigate the association between early choice and later destinations.

Results

In years 1, 3 and 5 post-qualification, respectively, 59.9% (37,385), 64.6% (31,473), and 67.2% (24,971) of contactable doctors responded. There was an overall increase, from the early to the later cohorts, in the percentage of medical graduates who wished to enter anaesthesia: for instance year 1 choices rose from 4.6 to 9.4%, comparing the 1974 and 2012 cohorts. Men were more likely than women to express an early preference for a career in anaesthesia: for example, at year 3 after qualification anaesthesia was the choice of 10.1% of men and 7.9% of women. There was a striking increase in the certainty with which women chose anaesthesia as their future career specialty in recent compared to earlier cohorts, not reflected in any trends observed in men choosing anaesthesia.

Sixty percent of doctors who were anaesthetists, 10 years after qualifying, had specified anaesthesia as their preferred specialty when surveyed in year 1, 80% in year 3, and 92% in year 5.

Doctors working as anaesthetists were less likely than those working in other hospital specialties to have specified, as strong influences on specialty choice, ‘experience of the subject’ as students, ‘inclinations before medical school’, and ‘what I really want to do’. Men anaesthetists were more influenced in their specialty choice than men in other hospital specialties by ‘wanting a career with acceptable hours’; the corresponding difference among women was not significant.

Conclusions

We suggest a focus on inspirational teaching of anaesthesia in medical school and on greater exposure to the specialty in the foundation programme. Factors which may discourage women from entering anaesthesia should be explored and addressed.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-017-0392-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rocuronium Versus Suxamethonium: A Survey of First-line Muscle Relaxant Use in UK Prehospital Rapid Sequence Induction

INTRODUCTION

Prehospital anaesthesia in the United Kingdom (UK) is provided by Helicopter Emergency Medical Service (HEMS) and British Association for Immediate Care (BASICS), a road-based service. Muscle relaxation in rapid sequence induction (RSI) has been traditionally undertaken with the use of suxamethonium; however, rocuronium at higher doses has comparable intubating conditions with fewer side effects.

HYPOTHESIS/PROBLEM

The aim of this survey was to establish how many prehospital services in the UK are now using rocuronium as first line in RSI.

METHODS

An online survey was constructed identifying choice of first-line muscle relaxant for RSI and emailed to lead clinicians for BASICS and HEMS services across the UK. If rocuronium was used, further questions regarding optimal dose, sugammadex, contraindications, and difference in intubating conditions were asked.

RESULTS

A total of 29 full responses (93.5%) were obtained from 31 services contacted. Suxamethonium was used first line by 17 prehospital services (58.6%) and rocuronium by 12 (41.4%). In 11 services (91.7%), a dose of 1 mg/kg of rocuronium was used, and in one service, 1.2 mg/kg (8.3%) was used. No services using rocuronium carried sugammadex. In five services, slower relaxation time was found using rocuronium (41.7%), and in seven services, no difference in intubation conditions were noted (58.3%). Contraindications to rocuronium use included high probability of difficult airway and anaphylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Use of rocuronium as first-line muscle relaxant in prehospital RSI is increasing. Continued auditing of practice will ascertain which services have adopted change and identify if complications of failed intubation increase as a result.