We present the main findings of the 5th National Audit Project (NAP5) on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA). Incidences were estimated using reports of accidental awareness as the numerator, and a parallel national anaesthetic activity survey to provide denominator data. The incidence of certain/probable and possible accidental awareness cases was ~1:19,600 anaesthetics (95% confidence interval 1:16,700-23,450). However, there was considerable variation across subtypes of techniques or subspecialities. The incidence with neuromuscular block (NMB) was ~1:8200 (1:7030-9700), and without, it was ~1:135,900 (1:78,600-299,000). The cases of AAGA reported to NAP5 were overwhelmingly cases of unintended awareness during NMB. The incidence of accidental awareness during Caesarean section was ~1:670 (1:380-1300). Two-thirds (82, 66%) of cases of accidental awareness experiences arose in the dynamic phases of anaesthesia, namely induction of and emergence from anaesthesia. During induction of anaesthesia, contributory factors included: use of thiopental, rapid sequence induction, obesity, difficult airway management, NMB, and interruptions of anaesthetic delivery during movement from anaesthetic room to theatre. During emergence from anaesthesia, residual paralysis was perceived by patients as accidental awareness, and commonly related to a failure to ensure full return of motor capacity. One-third (43, 33%) of accidental awareness events arose during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia, mostly due to problems at induction or towards the end of anaesthesia. Factors increasing the risk of accidental awareness included: female sex, age (younger adults, but not children), obesity, anaesthetist seniority (junior trainees), previous awareness, out-of-hours operating, emergencies, type of surgery (obstetric, cardiac, thoracic), and use of NMB. The following factors were not risk factors for accidental awareness: ASA physical status, race, and use or omission of nitrous oxide. We recommend that an anaesthetic checklist, to be an integral part of the World Health Organization Safer Surgery checklist, is introduced as an aid to preventing accidental awareness. This paper is a shortened version describing the main findings from NAP5--the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home.

SummaryThis guideline updates and replaces the 4th edition of the AAGBI Standards of Monitoring published in 2007. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on the minimum standards for physiological monitoring of any patient undergoing anaesthesia or sedation under the care of an anaesthetist. The recommendations are primarily aimed at anaesthetists practising in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Minimum standards for monitoring patients during anaesthesia and in the recovery phase are included. There is also guidance on monitoring patients undergoing sedation and also during transfer of anaesthetised or sedated patients. There are new sections discussing the role of monitoring depth of anaesthesia, neuromuscular blockade and cardiac output. The indications for end‐tidal carbon dioxide monitoring have been updated.

Carotid endarterectomy is commonly conducted under regional (deep, superficial, intermediate, or combined) cervical plexus block, but it is not known if complication rates differ. We conducted a systematic review of published papers to assess the complication rate associated with superficial (or intermediate) and deep (or combined deep plus superficial/intermediate). The null hypothesis was that complication rates were equal. Complications of interest were: (1) serious complications related to the placement of block, (2) incidence of conversion to general anaesthesia, and (3) serious systemic complications of the surgical-anaesthetic process. We retrieved 69 papers describing a total of 7558 deep/combined blocks and 2533 superficial/intermediate blocks. Deep/combined block was associated with a higher serious complication rate related to the injecting needle when compared with the superficial/intermediate block (odds ratio 2.13, P = 0.006). The conversion rate to general anaesthesia was also higher with deep/combined block (odds ratio 5.15, P < 0.0001), but there was an equivalent incidence of other systemic serious complications (odds ratio 1.13, P = 0.273; NS). We conclude that superficial/intermediate block is safer than any method that employs a deep injection. The higher rate of conversion to general anaesthesia with the deep/combined block may have been influenced by the higher incidence of direct complications, but may also suggest that the superficial/combined block provides better analgesia during surgery.

SummaryFaced with the concern that an increasing number of airway management devices were being introduced into clinical practice with little or no prior evidence of their clinical efficacy or safety, the Difficult Airway Society formed a working party (Airway Device Evaluation Project Team) to establish a process by which the airway management community within the profession could itself lead a process of formal device/equipment evaluation. Although there are several national and international regulations governing which products can come on to the market and be legitimately sold, there has hitherto been no formal professional guidance relating to how products should be selected (i.e. purchased). The Airway Device Evaluation Project Team’s first task was to formulate such advice, emphasising evidence‐based principles. Team discussions led to a definition of the minimum level of evidence needed to make a pragmatic decision about the purchase or selection of an airway device. The Team concluded that this definition should form the basis of a professional standard, guiding those with responsibility for selecting airway devices. We describe how widespread adoption of this professional standard can act as a driver to create an infrastructure in which the required evidence can be obtained. Essential elements are that: (i) the Difficult Airway Society facilitates a coherent national network of research‐active units; and (ii) individual anaesthetists in hospital trusts play a more active role in local purchasing decisions, applying the relevant evidence and communicating their purchasing decisions to the Difficult Airway Society.

SummaryWhile numerous reports have sought ways of improving the efficiency of surgical operating lists, none has defined 'efficiency'. We describe a formula that defines efficiency as incorporating three elements: maximising utilisation, minimising over-running and minimising cancellations on a list. We applied this formula to hypothetical (but realistic) scenarios, and our formula yielded plausible descriptions of these. We also applied the formula to 16 consecutive elective surgical lists from three gynaecology teams (two at a university hospital and one at a non-university hospital). Again, the formula gave useful insights into problems faced by the teams in improving their performance, and it also guided possible solutions. The formula confirmed that a team that schedules cases according to the predicted durations of the operations listed (i.e. the non-university hospital team) suffered fewer cancellations (median 5% vs 8% and 13%) and fewer list over-runs (6% vs 38% and 50%), and performed considerably more efficiently (90% vs 79% and 72%; p = 0.038) than teams that did not do so (i.e. those from the university hospital). We suggest that surgical list performance is more completely described by our formula for efficiency than it is by other conventional measures such as list utilisation or cancellation rate alone.

SummaryWe present the main findings of the 5th National Audit Project on accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. Incidences were estimated using reports of accidental awareness as the numerator, and a parallel national anaesthetic activity survey to provide denominator data. The incidence of certain/probable and possible accidental awareness cases was ~1:19 600 anaesthetics (95% CI 1:16 700–23 450). However, there was considerable variation across subtypes of techniques or subspecialties. The incidence with neuromuscular blockade was ~1:8200 (1:7030–9700), and without it was ~1:135 900 (1:78 600–299 000). The cases of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia reported to 5th National Audit Project were overwhelmingly cases of unintended awareness during neuromuscular blockade. The incidence of accidental awareness during caesarean section was ~1:670 (1:380–1300). Two thirds (82, 66%) of cases of accidental awareness experiences arose in the dynamic phases of anaesthesia, namely induction of and emergence from anaesthesia. During induction of anaesthesia, contributory factors included: use of thiopental; rapid sequence induction; obesity; difficult airway management; neuromuscular blockade; and interruptions of anaesthetic delivery during movement from anaesthetic room to theatre. During emergence from anaesthesia, residual paralysis was perceived by patients as accidental awareness, and commonly related to a failure to ensure full return of motor capacity. One third (43, 33%) of accidental awareness events arose during the maintenance phase of anaesthesia, most due to problems at induction or towards the end of anaesthesia. Factors increasing the risk of accidental awareness included: female sex; age (younger adults, but not children); obesity; anaesthetist seniority (junior trainees); previous awareness; out‐of‐hours operating; emergencies; type of surgery (obstetric, cardiac, thoracic); and use of neuromuscular blockade. The following factors were not risk factors for accidental awareness: ASA physical status; race; and use or omission of nitrous oxide. We recommend that an anaesthetic checklist, to be an integral part of the World Health Organization Safer Surgery checklist, is introduced as an aid to preventing accidental awareness. This paper is a shortened version describing the main findings from 5th National Audit Project – the full report can be found at http://www.nationalauditprojects.org.uk/NAP5_home#pt.

Summary This guideline updates and replaces the 5th edition of the Standards of Monitoring published in 2015. The aim of this document is to provide guidance on the minimum standards for monitoring of any patient undergoing anaesthesia or sedation under the care of an anaesthetist. The recommendations are primarily aimed at anaesthetists practising in the UK and Ireland, but it is recognised that these guidelines may also be of use in other areas of the world. Minimum standards for monitoring patients during anaesthesia and in the recovery phase are included. There is also guidance on monitoring patients undergoing sedation and during transfer. There are new sections specifically discussing capnography, sedation and regional anaesthesia. In addition, the indications for processed electroencephalogram and neuromuscular monitoring have been updated.

SummaryFactors affecting the spread of bupivacaine in the paravertebral space were investigated in patients undergoing paravertebral nerve blocks for the treatment of chronically painful conditions. Injections of bupivacaine 0.5%, 10-15 ml mixed with depomedrone up to 80 mg were repeated at 2-wk intervals up to a maximum of four times. A blinded observer mapped out the subsequent distribution of sensory loss to cold on both sides of the torso at 5-min intervals after each injection. Age, sex, height and weight did not correlate with the block; nor did injectate volume, mass of bupivacaine, previous posterolateral thoractomy and spread of radiocontrast. Injections repeated at 2-wk intervals in the same patient resulted in different degrees of spread that were unrelated to one another. Time to peak onset of blockade was 40 min in 95% of patients. A single bolus of bupivacaine produces a safe but unpredictable block. Yet to be defined physical properties and anatomical factors are probably key determinants of the spread of bupivacaine in the paravertebral space. This single bolus technique may be better supplanted by a reversion to the older multiple level injection technique.Keywords Local anaesthetic. Bupivacaine: nerve block, intercostal nerve. Two aspects of paravertebral nerve blocks that have been poorly investigated are the predictability of spread of local anaesthetic and the reliability of production of the block. To identify any involved factors, we undertook this prospective, single-blinded, longitudinal, observational study of patients undergoing therapeutic paravertebral blocks as a part of their chronic pain management. MethodsThe study was approved by the local ethics committee and written informed consent was obtained from all patients.Patients listed for therapeutic paravertebral injections as a component of management of chronically painful conditions of the chest and abdomen were included in the study. Those with a pre-existing sensory deficit were excluded. A single injection technique was used, as described elsewhere [1]. All blocks were performed to the satisfaction of the same experienced operator (J.R.). Correct Tuohy needle placement alongside the vertebral column superior to the transverse process in each patient was confirmed through the injection of 3 ml of radioopaque dye (Isovist, Schering, Germany). All material was injected with the Tuohy needle opening pointing cranially and contrast medium was tracked with an image intensifier, its shape being categorised as globular or as a cranio-caudal streak. Bupivacaine 0.5%, 10-15 ml mixed with depomedrone up to 80 mg was injected over 60 s.In the recovery room, a blinded observer mapped out the subsequent distribution of sensory loss to cold on both sides of the torso at 5-min intervals until a stable block had been established, i.e. two 5-min observations were the 684Ó 2003 Blackwell Publishing Ltd same. The cold stimulus used was a mixture of ice in tap water contained in a copper test tube. Each patient also had non-invasive measurements...