The incidence of ED is approximately 10% in our population of healthy, unpremedicated Asian children undergoing day surgery. Young age, poor compliance at induction, lack of intraoperative fentanyl use and rapid time to awakening were predictive risk factors for ED in our population. A PAED Score of >or=10 was correlated with clinically significant ED and appeared to be the ideal cutoff score for ED.
Decision to postpone GA should be considered if all these risk factors (tracheal compression, vascular compression, the presence of at least three respiratory symptoms/signs) are present in the same patient.
INTRODUCTIONThis study reports our experience of audit and critical incidents observed by paediatric anaesthetics from 2000 to 2010 at a paediatric teaching hospital in Singapore.METHODS Data pertaining to patient demographics, practices and critical incidents during anaesthesia and in the perioperative period were prospectively collected via an audit form and retrospectively analysed thereafter.RESULTS A total of 2,519 incidents were noted at the 75,331 anaesthetics performed during the study period. There were nine deaths reported. The majority of incidents reported were respiratory critical incidents (n = 1,757, 69.8%), followed by cardiovascular incidents (n = 238, 9.5%). Risk factors for critical incidents included age less than one year, and preterm and former preterm children.CONCLUSION Critical incident reporting has value, as it provides insights into the system and helps to identify active and system errors, thus enabling the formulation of effective preventive strategies. By creating and maintaining an environment that encourages reporting, we have maintained a high and consistent reporting rate through the years. The teaching of analysis of critical incidents should be regarded by all clinicians as an important tool for improving patient safety.
BackgroundActive ‘hands-on’ participation in the ‘hot-seat’ during immersive simulation-based training (SBT) induces stress for participants, which is believed to be necessary to improve performance. We hypothesized that observers of SBT can subsequently achieve an equivalent level of non-technical performance as ‘hot-seat’ participants despite experiencing lower stress.MethodsWe randomized 37 anaesthesia trainees into two groups to undergo three consecutive SBT scenarios. Eighteen ‘hot-seat’ trainees actively participated in all three scenarios, and 19 ‘observer’ trainees were directed to observe the first two scenarios and participated in the ‘hot-seat’ only in scenario 3. Salivary cortisol (SC) was measured at four time points during each scenario. Primary endpoint for stress response was the change in SC (ΔSC) from baseline. Performance was measured using the Anaesthetist’s Non-Technical Skills (ANTS) Score.ResultsMean SC increased in all participants whenever they were in the ‘hot-seat’ role, but not when in the observer role. Hot-seat ΔSC (mcg/dL) for scenarios 1, 2, and 3 were 0.122 (p = 0.001), 0.074 (p = 0.047), and 0.085 (p = 0.023), respectively. Observers ΔSC (mcg/dL) for scenarios 1, 2, and 3 were −0.062 (p = 0.091), 0.010 (p = 0.780), and 0.144 (p = 0.001), respectively. Mean ANTS scores were equivalent between the ‘hot-seat’ (40.0) and ‘observer’ (39.4) groups in scenario 3 (p = 0.733).ConclusionsObservers of SBT achieved an equivalent level of non-technical performance, while experiencing lower stress than trainees repeatedly trained in the ‘hot-seat’. Our findings suggest that directed observers may benefit from immersive SBT even without repeated ‘hands-on’ experience and stress in the hot-seat. The directed observer role may offer a less stressful, practical alternative to the traditional ‘hot-seat’ role, potentially rendering SBT accessible to a wider audience.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT02211378, registered August 5, 2014, retrospectively registered.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41077-017-0040-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.