An audit of level two and level three checks of anaesthesia delivery systems performed at three hospitals in South Australia

Evaluation of the Approaches of the Anaesthesiologists on Maintenance of Anaesthesia Machines

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to discuss the level of knowledge and approach on 'maintenance, calibration and cleaning of anaesthesia devices' among anaesthesiologists in Turkey.

METHODS

A questionnaire was prepared with 21 questions based on the Google document system, and these questionnaires were sent to the anaesthesiologists via e-mail.

RESULTS

Overall, 226 anaesthesiologists answered our survey. With respect to the maintenance and calibration, anaesthesiologists had sufficient information about the vaporizer and the carbon dioxide canister devices; however, information about the vital components, such as disassembly of the anaesthesia machine, flow sensor, oxygen sensor, battery and exhaust system, was insufficient. The cleaning and sterilization procedures were performed when the devices became dirty, and the bacteria filter was used only for the protection of the anaesthesia system. There was a lack of knowledge about how and which part of the anaesthesia device should be disinfected. In total, 85% of the survey participants were thinking of the need of additional education on anaesthesia machine maintenance.

CONCLUSION

It is observed that education about anaesthesia device maintenance, calibration and cleaning issues is obviously necessary for the anaesthesiology specialists in our country. We believe that it would be useful to highlight this issue to anaesthesia educational institutions and anaesthesia associations.

Revalidation: implications for Australian anaesthetists

In early 2015, the Medical Board of Australia commissioned research into international revalidation models and what might be applicable for Australia. This review examines the implications for Australian anaesthetists. What problem is revalidation seeking to address? What is happening in similar countries? Is there an issue with Australian anaesthetists' performance? Isn't continuing professional development enough? Could the Medical Board target known high-risk doctors? What is the evidence for the benefit of revalidation? How is and how should the profession be involved? Revalidation has been introduced in other developed countries. It commonly involves continuing professional development, feedback from colleagues, co-workers and patients, clinical audit and peer review. Although its evidence base is limited, the General Medical Council in the United Kingdom is evaluating its revalidation system, which should provide useful guidance for other countries. Australian anaesthetists and their professional organisations must remain informed about, and engaged in, the national debate about revalidation, to ensure that any new process is workable for Australian anaesthesia practice.

Development, implementation and impact of simple patient safety interventions in a university teaching hospital

OBJECTIVE

To determine the incidence of anesthesia patient safety incidents at a university teaching hospital, develop interventions to address the most common incidents, and determine the effectiveness of these interventions.

STUDY DESIGN

Pre-post intervention observational.

ANIMALS

Four thousand, one hundred forty dogs and cats anesthetized by the anesthesia service.

METHODS

The study was divided into two 11.5 month periods. During each period, incidents were logged (e.g. closed adjustable pressure limiting (APL) valve, esophageal intubation, and medication error). At the end of the first period, four countermeasures were incorporated into the service's protocols: 1) prior to any drug injection, the individual would read out aloud the drug name, patient name, and route of administration; 2) use of a uniquely colored occlusive wrap over arterial catheters; 3) a check box on the anesthesia record labeled "Technician Confirmed Intubation"; 4) a check box on the anesthesia record labeled "Technician Checked OR (operating room)". The number of patient safety incidents during period 1 and period 2 were compared using Fisher's Exact Test.

RESULTS

During Period 1, there were 74 incidents documented in 2028 patients (3.6%) including 25 medication errors, 20 closed APL valves, and 16 of esophageal intubation. During Period 2, there were 30 incidents documented in 2112 patients (1.4%) including 14 medication errors, 5 closed APL valves, and 4 of esophageal intubation. The proportion of events during Period 2 was significantly smaller than during Period 1 (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Implementation of four simple interventions was associated with a significant decrease in the number of incidents.